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 numerous trademark registrations for the VIRGIN MEDIA and VIRGIN marks. ...
2017-01-03 - Case Details
The Respondent requests that the Panel make a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the mark THE XYA by virtue of its registered trade marks for that term.
...
2017-07-10 - Case Details
Respondent disputes Complainant’s account of the 2004 telephone conversation, asserting that Complainant solicited a purchase of the disputed domain name rather than Respondent’s offering to sell it.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar.
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied. Complainant has two federally-registered United States trademarks for KAREEM ABDUL-JABBAR. ...
2008-02-09 - Case Details
- the Respondent does make public the relationship with the Complainant, as it never claimed that it is the producer of the vehicles posted on internet site or the holder of the SUBARU trademark;
- use of the domain name is made without intention to divert consumers or to mislead them in any way, as the Respondent is carrying out activities with SUBARU vehicles;
- the Respondent is the first company in Romania that had advertised the SUBARU trademark and it can be said that the Respondent is known by the disputed domain name, even though it is not the holder of the trademark;
- the Respondent registered the domain name with the purpose of exclusively trading SUBARU products on the basis of the commercial relationship with SUBARU MOTORS HELLAS SA that was authorized by the producer to organize distribution in Romania.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is identical with a trademark in which the Complainant has rights, as the disputed domain name incorporates entirely this mark. ...
2008-01-22 - 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. ...
2006-09-26 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not
reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is, for all intents and purposes, identical to Complainant’s name “Raj Soin”. ...
2007-03-21 - Case Details
The Panel finds the Response contains information pertinent to (even if not dispositive of as such) the merits of the case, and prefers to decide the case on the basis of the most complete available record.
B. Identical of Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is identical to the LOUENHIDE trademark in which Complainant has rights. ...
2011-11-14 - Case Details
Finally the Respondent states that the Complainant has not explained why it waited six years from the date of the Respondent’s registration to initiate this Complaint and that this is a case where the Complainant has engaged in reverse domain name hijacking.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...
2011-12-19 - Case Details
The Panel finds that the disputed Domain Name is likely to attract customers of the Complainant seeking to access the Complainant's services or information relating thereto; this fact alone is sufficient to conclude that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's FORTUNEO trademark.”
Confédération Nationale Du Crédit Mutuel v. Equitron,
Litige OMPI No. ...
2010-05-14 - Case Details
For these reasons the Panel declines to admit either Complainant’s Supplemental Filing or Respondent’s second Response and will take no account of them in its decision.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar.
Respondent concedes identity, so paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied. Use to which the disputed domain name has been put has no bearing on the Panel’s determination under this Policy head. ...
2012-03-16 - Case Details
In addition the Respondent submits that the Complainant falsely concocted its claim of use in the Respondent’s geographical area in order to try and support its claim.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant owns a United States Trade Mark Registration No. 3,640,656 for the word mark DEXTRA dating from January 2009. ...
2012-05-04 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Pursuant to paragraph 4 (a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following in order that the Respondent be required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding:
(i) The domain name in issue is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark or service mark, 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.
...
2000-08-08 - 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 legitimate interests in respects of the domain name; and
3)the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
...
2000-08-01 - Case Details
These elements are set forth in Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy:
- the Domain Name "crystallize.com" is identical to the trademark CRYSTALLIZE applied for by Complainant, but it is not clear that Complainant has established rights in the trademark; and
- 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
- that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
- that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2000-10-13 - Case Details
The Respondent did not file a Response to the Complaint.
6. Discussion and Findings
Identical or Confusingly Similar Domain Name
6.1. In relation to the domain name , the relevant part of this domain name is . ...
2000-10-24 - Case Details
The Respondent did not file a Response to the Complaint.
6. Discussion and Findings
Identical or Confusingly Similar Domain Names
6.1. In relation to both of the domain names "harveynorman.net" and "harveynorman.org", the relevant part of these domain names is "harveynorman". ...
2000-09-27 - Case Details
Complainant
5.1 The Complainant’s contentions may be summarized as follows:
The Complainant is the well-known airline Japan Airlines and has rights in the name "JAL" (an acronym of its name) both by virtue of its numerous trademark registrations in the US and in other jurisdictions and by virtue of its international reputation.
5.2 The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark "JAL".
5.3 The Respondents have no right or legitimate interest in the domain name. ...
2000-09-04 - Case Details
These premises are:
- the domain name registered by the respondent must be identical or confusingly similar to an earlier product or service mark in which the complainant holds rights.
- the respondent must have no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name; and
- the domain name must have been registered and used in bad faith.
6.2.1 Analysis of the Identity or Similarity of the Trademarks and the Domain Name
Logically disregarding the ".NET" element identifying the TLD, the absolute identity of the "GONVARRI.NET" domain name and the GONVARRI trademark is beyond doubt.
6.2.2 Analysis of the Existence or Non-Existence of Rights or Legitimate Interests in the Domain Name in Conflict held by the Respondent
The respondent's failure to reply to the complaint prevents the panel from considering its version and knowing the reasons, rights and legitimate interests that may have led it to adopt "GONVARRI.NET" as a domain name.
...
2000-09-06 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove the presence of each of the following elements: (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.
...
2001-03-09 - Case Details
Discussions and Findings
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 the 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...
2001-01-22 - Case Details