Discussion and Findings
In order to succeed in its application paragraph 4(a) of the Policy places on the Complainant the onus of proving that:
(i) the domain name in dispute 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 said domain name; and
(iii) the said domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2001-10-15 - Case Details
And Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that, for a complaint to be granted, the Complainant must prove each of the following:
(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 no legitimate interests in respect of the domain name, and,
(iii) that the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
6.2 Absence of a response to the Complaint by the Respondent
In the absence of a response to the Complainants claims by the Respondent,
the Panel must consider those claims in the light of the evidence submitted
by the Complainant. ...
2002-03-18 - 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 rights or interests in respect of the domain name; and
- The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2002-04-16 - Case Details
Société Dekra-ACL
Case n° D2001-1437
Decision
Having seen Paragraphs 4.i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules,
The Administrative Panel decides:
(a) that the Domain names and registered by the Respondent, under the name DEKRA-ACL, are identical or anyway confusingly similar to the trademarks and other rights opposed by the Complainant Dekra-Veritas Automobile.
...
2002-02-11 - 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.
...
2001-12-10 - Case Details
Gilles Rebierre
Case n° D2001-0851
DECISION
Having seen Paragraphs 4.i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules,
The Administrative Panel decides :
(a) that the Domain Name registered by the
Respondant is identical or anyway confusingly similar to the trademarks and
others rights of the complainant Société d'exploitation du Palais
des Congrès de Paris S.A.
...
2001-08-27 - Case Details
Original Arbitration Findings
In NAF 96532 the Panel refused the Complaint because:
(a) the Complainant’s and the Respondent’s marks were not identical or confusingly similar;
(b) the Respondent had a legitimate right and interest in the use of the name, Furrytails, as he had waited until after the expiry on the non-competition clause before launching his business selling resin toys. ...
2001-09-21 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
In order for the Panel to decide whether to grant the remedy of transfer of a domain name to a Complainant under the Policy it is necessary that the Complainant prove, as required by paragraph 4 (a) of the Policy that:
(i) the contested 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 domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2003-08-25 - Case Details
The Complainants further contend that in the unlikely event that the Registrants were not aware of the Complainants’ rights in its trade mark when registering the domain name, they have since been advised of such rights by correspondence, to which the Registrants have failed to respond.
B. Registrants
Identical or Misleadingly Similar
The Registrants contend that the domain name is not identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service marks in which the Complainants allegedly have rights.
...If the Complainants were concerned to protect their names and brands they should have registered marks in the relevant classes
The Complainants’ documents do not demonstrate an identical or similar mark for identical goods and/or services nor an identical or similar mark for similar goods and/or services. ...
2007-02-15 - Case Details
These elements are that:
(i) respondent's domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which complainant has rights; and
(ii) respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) respondent's domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Each of the aforesaid three elements must be proved by a complainant to warrant relief.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has registered the word and design trademark VIEWGUARD on the Principal Register of the USPTO, and has provided substantial evidence of use of that trademark in commerce in the United States. ...
2010-06-01 - Case Details
Although the disputed domain name is visually different from the Complainant’s trade mark DANFOSS, it is nevertheless confusingly similar to the Complaint’s trade mark as the disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s trade mark DANFOSS phonetically in its entirety. ...（参见WIPO Overview 2.0, 第1.10段，“Consensus view: 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.”）
...
2012-03-28 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Pursuant to Policy, paragraph 4(a), the Complainant must prove each of the following to justify the transfer of the disputed domain name:
(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 disputed domain name; and
(iii) the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...By Rules, paragraph 5(b)(i), it is expected of a respondent to: "[r]espond specifically to the statements and allegations contained in the complaint and include any and all bases for the Respondent (domain-name holder) to retain registration and use of the disputed domain name…"
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided evidence and has thus established its rights in the CONTOUR trademark in various jurisdictions including Ukraine where the Respondent is located. ...
2015-07-10 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
In terms of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for the Complaint to succeed, the Complainant must prove each of
the following:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the
Complainant has rights;
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.
...The case followed several administrative proceedings filed by other
parties against the same respondent in similar circumstances. The decision in one of the previous cases
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?...
2022-06-15 - Case Details
The Complainant is wrong to say that the disputed domain name is of no value to the Respondent independently of the Complainant's trade mark. The Respondent has sold similar brand-able domain names in the past.
The Complainant has failed in its burden to establish that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests.
...The Panel has decided not to admit the Respondent's supplemental filing because it does not add anything material to the Respondent's extensive primary submission.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is not in dispute that the Complainant has acquired rights in the mark TOBAM as licensee of the registered trade marks for that term.
...
2016-11-28 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following:
(1) 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,
(2) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and,
(3) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...This philosophy
would prevent all uses of domain names that are similar to registered trademarks
for any new business not ready to put up a website immediately upon registration
of the domain name. ...
2002-04-10 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements that the Complainant must prove to merit a finding that the domain names of the Respondent be transferred to the Complainant or cancelled:
1. The domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark (“mark”) in which the Complainant has rights; and
2. the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names; and
3. the domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
That being so, the Panel will now proceed to enquire if the Complaint has discharged its onus to prove each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6A.1 The Complainant has rights in the trademark MAWANA SUGARS due to its long usage of the said trademarks for the last 55 years and has sought to reinforce these rights by moving appropriate applications for registrations with the Registrar of Trademarks. ...
2006-04-13 - Case Details
Namely the Complainant must prove that:
(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (paragraph 4(a)(i)); and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name (paragraph 4(a)(ii)); and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (paragraph 4(a)(iii)).
6.2 The Panel will address each of these issues in turn. ...It would seem inequitable for a panel to find that court proceedings in relation to a domain name prevented that panel from considering the substance of proceedings under the Policy, if those court proceedings were not binding on the domain name registrant.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.14 This aspect of this case is relatively straight forward. The Complainant possesses a registered trade mark that comprises the word “Axelion”. ...
2009-01-07 - Case Details
Similarity
The Complainant takes the position that the contested domain names are nearly identical and confusingly similar to its marks "AOL" and "AOL.COM" as to likely confuse Internet users who may believe they are doing business with the Complainant or with an entity whose services are endorsed by, sponsored by, or affiliated with the Complainant; hence, satisfying the confusing similarity requirement in paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...Since the Complainant has never authorized the Respondent to utilize either
of the marks "AOL" or "AOL.COM" in any manner, nor does the Complainant have
any relationship, affiliation or association whatsoever with the Respondent,
then any use to which the Respondent were to put of the term "AOL" or "AOL.COM",
in connection with services identical or similar to those with which the Complainant
is using its marks, would directly violate the exclusive trademark rights now
residing in the Complainant -- rights which began accruing to the Complainant
over 10 years prior to the date on which all the contested domain names were
registered. ...
2001-06-25 - Case Details
Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights in any name remotely similar to the disputed domain name.
In light of this above prior conduct, Respondent is not making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of domain name.
...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.
...
2001-12-04 - Case Details
There is no significance in the Respondent having used the Registrar’s privacy service for the WhoIs of the
disputed domain name, which is employed to protect the registrant from malware, unsolicited commercial
email, phishing and similar abuses.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Preliminary Issue – Parties’ Supplemental Filings
Paragraph 10 of the UDRP Rules vests the Panel with the authority to determine the admissibility, relevance,
materiality, and weight of the evidence, and also to conduct the proceedings with due expedition. ...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. ...
2024-07-29 - Case Details