As a consequence the Respondent’s email of October 2, 2017 will not be accepted into the record and it follows that the Panel will also not accept the Complainant’s supplemental filing into the record.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it owns numerous trade mark registrations for its WHATSAPP mark, including, in particular, Australian trade mark 1442974 registered on May 24, 2011. ...
2017-11-01 - Case Details
In summary, the Respondent says that it believes that the disputed domain name is an apt name for parties wanting to use it in relation to “adventure” and that in the circumstances of the generic nature of the disputed domain name there is no evidence of targeting by the Respondent and it is not bad faith for the Respondent to attempt to sell the disputed domain name to third parties.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it owns a Spanish trade mark registration for ADVENTUM under number M-3011914 which was filed on December 30, 2011 and registered on April 16, 2012. ...
2017-09-05 - Case Details
In the absence of a Response the Panelist has exercised its discretion and decided not to admit this Supplemental Filing.
Identical or confusingly similar
Based on the evidence provided in the Complaint, the Panelist finds that the Complainant has rights in the mark VIVA LA MAMMA, which are protected under Dutch law. ...
2009-05-18 - Case Details
That the Complainant has rights in a trade or service mark with which the Respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar (paragraph 4(a)(i))
On the face of the Complaint as filed, the Complainants have satisfied the various requirements of this paragraph. ...
2005-05-26 - Case Details
The
only communication forwarded by the Respondent was the before mentioned request
for extension.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established its rights in the trademark YEM KITABEVI with logo, in Turkey, by enclosing the trademark certificate issued by the Turkish Patent Office and providing proof of its use in association with its products and services.
...
2007-02-26 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its Marks.
Complainant alleges that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. ...
2006-01-04 - Case Details
XC2 The disputed
domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. The addition
of another letter “N” does not change the way in which the word
is pronounced. ...
2006-02-14 - Case Details
Consequently the Panelist determined that the proceeding should continue and a decision issued within the given term.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In the instant case there is no doubt that the first requirement of paragraph 4 a) of the UDRP has been duly met.
...
2009-02-27 - Case Details
See Reply, Exhibit A.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the mark REPRODUCTIVE SCIENCE CENTER. ...
2007-11-02 - Case Details
Decision
The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use and registration which predate the date of registration of the disputed domain name.
...
2014-08-20 - Case Details
To invoke the Policy, a Complainant must show that the domain name at issue is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights, that the Respondent lacks rights or a legitimate interest in the domain name, and that the Respondent registered and used the name in bad faith. ...
2014-04-09 - Case Details
In summary the Respondent says that the evidence demonstrates that he did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith as is required under the Policy.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it owns a combined word/device Benelux trade mark registration under number 891361, filed on October 27, 2010 incorporating the BOUNZ word mark and a Community word mark registration number 10895191 for BOUNZ, which was filed on May 18, 2012. ...
2015-10-06 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed in this proceeding, the Complainant must prove (i) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which it has rights; (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2010-05-10 - Case Details
Where a complainant is represented by able intellectual property counsel who, even on a rudimentary examination of the Policy and its application in this area should have appreciated that the complaint could not succeed, Reverse Domain Name Hijacking may be found.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the mark BOON by virtue of its registered trade mark for that term. ...
2015-06-29 - Case Details
Applicable Policy Provisions
The UDRP Policy requires the Complainant to prove each of the following three elements, in order to prevail in this proceeding:
1. That the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
2. That Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
3. ...
2000-04-10 - Case Details
In short there is no evidence at all from the Complainant other than as to the subsequent trade mark registration referred to above.
5.2 The Complainant also pleads that it "owns a chain of retail stores in Switzerland, Germany and Austria" but no details are given of these stores, whether they are named SHOPNET or what (if anything) their relevance is.
5.3 The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark "SHOPNET".
5.4 The Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the domain name. ...
2000-08-02 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
For the complainant to succeed, the Panel must, under Paragraph 4(a) of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, be satisfied:
(i) that the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2000-05-08 - Case Details
The burden for the Complainant, under paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN Policy, is
to show:
- That the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly
similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
- That the Respondent has no legitimate interests in respect of the domain
name; and
- The domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
...
2001-06-07 - Case Details
To succeed in its Complaint, Complainant must show that each of the conditions
of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied, namely that
(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service
mark in which complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name,
and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith.
...
2002-06-25 - Case Details
To qualify for cancellation or transfer, a Complainant must prove each element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, namely:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2002-01-11 - Case Details