Pursuant to Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(i)-(iii) of the ADR Rules, the Panel finds that:
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right or rights
are recognized or established by national law of a Member State and / or European Union law.
...
2023-02-17 - Case Details
Pursuant to Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(i)-(iii) of the ADR Rules, the Panel finds that:
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right or rights
are recognized or established by national law of a Member State and / or European Union law.
...
2023-11-16 - Case Details
Identité ou similitude prêtant à confusion
Le Requérant rappelle à juste titre que, selon l’aperçu des solutions retenues par les commissions
administratives (voir Synthèse des avis des commissions administratives de l’OMPI sur certaines questions
relatives aux Principes UDRP, “Synthèse de l’OMPI, version 3.0”), lorsqu’une caractéristique dominante de
la marque concernée est reconnaissable dans le nom de domaine, le nom de domaine est normalement
considéré comme similaire au point de prêter à confusion à cette marque (when « a dominant feature of the
relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly
similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing »). Or l’appellation “ursaff” et la marque bien connue
URSSAF ne se distinguent en rien oralement et ne trouvent une différence à l’écrit qu’au terme d’un
typosquatting manifeste, classiquement sanctionné par les commissions administratives.
...
2024-03-07 - Case Details
En conséquence, la condition du paragraphe 4(a)(i) des Principes directeurs est remplie.
1 Synthèse des avis des commissions administratives sur certaines questions relatives aux Principes UDRP, troisième édition
(“Synthèse de l’OMPI, version 3.0”), section 1.10: “A domain name which contains a common or obvious misspelling of a trademark
normally will be found to be confusingly similar to such trademark, where the misspelled trademark remains the dominant or principal
component of the domain name.”
...
2023-06-27 - Case Details
Pursuant to Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(i-iii) of the ADR Rules, the Panel finds that:
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right or rights
are recognized or established by national law of a Member State and / or European Union Law.
...
2024-03-13 - Case Details
Finally, the
Respondent indicated that the transfer of the disputed Domain Name could be requested after August 12,
2024.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-08-26 - Case Details
Pursuant to Article 21(1) of the Commission Regulation (EU) No. 874/2004 and Paragraph
B(11)(d)(1)(i)-(iii) of the ADR Rules, the Panel finds that:
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right or rights
are recognized or established by national law of a Member State and / or European Union law.
...
2022-10-05 - Case Details
Pursuant to Article 21(1) of the Commission Regulation (EU) No. 874/2004 and
Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(i)-(iii) of the ADR Rules, the Panel finds that:
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right or rights
are recognized or established by national law of a Member State and / or European Union law.
...
2022-09-28 - Case Details
Pursuant to Article 21(1) of the European Union Regulation (EU) No. 874/2004 and Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(i)-
(iii) of the ADR Rules, the Panel finds that:
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right or rights
are recognized or established by national law of a Member State and / or European Union law.
...
2022-07-05 - Case Details
The Panel notes that this decision is rendered without prejudice to any action that an applicable Court may deem appropriate or necessary in furtherance of a proceeding in that forum.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate its registered rights in the ALIEXPRESS trademark.
...
2022-02-22 - Case Details
The Panel has authority to decide the dispute examining the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, taking into consideration all of the relevant evidence, annexed material and allegations, and performing some limited independent research under the general powers of the Panel articulated, inter alia, in paragraph 10 of the Rules.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainants indisputably have rights in the registered HUGO BOSS mark. The disputed domain name incorporates the HUGO BOSS mark in its entirety, and the ccTLD “.me” is a technical requirement, generally disregarded for the purpose of the analysis of the confusing similarity. ...
2020-11-06 - Case Details
The Panel has authority to decide the dispute examining the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, taking into consideration all of the relevant evidence, annexed material and allegations, and performing some limited independent research under the general powers of the Panel articulated, inter alia, in paragraph 10 of the Rules.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant indisputably has rights in the registered trademark ALSTOM, both by virtue of its numerous trademark registrations and as a result of its global goodwill and reputation. ...
2021-04-21 - Case Details
Pursuant to Article 21(1) of the Commission Regulation (EU) No. 874/2004 and Article B11(d)(1)(i)-(iii) of the ADR Rules, the Panel finds that:
- the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right or rights are recognized or established by national law of a Member State and / or EU-law;
- the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name;
- the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
6. ...
2020-09-09 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not file a Response.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant owns various trade mark registrations around the world for its QUORA mark, including Australian trade mark registration No. 1653006 for the combined QUORA word and device mark which was registered on May 13, 2015. ...
2020-04-15 - Case Details
The Panel therefore determines that English shall be the language of the proceeding.
Substantive Issues:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the owner of the registered trade mark NETBET. The trade mark has been incorporated in its entirety in the disputed domain name.
...
2016-12-27 - Case Details
The Panel believes that the Respondent is not prejudiced by the language of the proceeding being English.
Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established it has rights in the CHAPOUTIER trade mark. The entire mark has been incorporated in the disputed domain names and the only difference lies in the generic Top-Level Domains (“gTLDs”) “.top”, “.club” and “.vip”. ...
2016-10-26 - Case Details
The Complainant’s first domain name was registered in April 2002.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights in the mark ASIANET by virtue of its Indian registered trade marks.
...
2018-10-02 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's JLL marks. According to the Complainant, the Complainant's JLL mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, and the addition of the geographically descriptive term "argentina" does not preclude a finding of confusing similarity for purposes of the first element of the Policy. ...
2018-07-11 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
By submitting several printouts taken from the databases of the corresponding official trademark offices of WIPO, the United States, the European Union, and Canada, Complainant has proved to the satisfaction of the Panel that it has rights in the SEATGEEK trademark for the purposes of Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). ...
2018-09-20 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has shown to the satisfaction of the Panel that it owns trademark rights in the SKYSCANNER mark. ...
2018-06-07 - Case Details