Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that English shall be the language of the proceeding.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use and registration which predate by many years the date of registration of the disputed domain name by the Respondent.
...
2011-03-09 - Case Details
Since paragraph 4(a)(i) requires Complainant to prove that the disputed domain name “is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights,” and such rights have not been proven here, the Panel need not address any issues under paragraphs 4(a)(ii) or 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
...
2012-11-09 - Case Details
Applicable Disputes – Paragraph 4(a)
Regarding sub-paragraph 4(a)(i), the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has clearly proved through its evidence that the domain name is substantially identical or confusingly similar to "ABEBOOKS.COM" in which the Complainant has established rights in Australia and internationally well before any reputation, if any, that might be supposed to have been derived by commencement of the Respondent using a website.
...
2003-11-17 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4.a. of the Policy directs that Stella D’oro must prove each of the following:
(i) The domain name in issue is identical or confusingly similar to Stella D’oro’s trademark and service mark, and
(ii) Patron 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.
...
2000-02-18 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4.a. of the Policy directs that Nabisco must prove, with respect to each domain name in issue, each of the following:
(i) The domain name in issue is identical or confusingly similar to the corresponding Nabisco trademark, and
(ii) Patron 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.
...
2000-02-23 - 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.
...
2000-08-29 - Case Details
Applied to this case, Paragraph 4 (a) of the Policy directs that 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 legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) that the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
...
2000-11-16 - Case Details
This also follows from the concluding words to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
6.2 Domain name identical or confusingly similar to the Complainants’ Marks
The domain name in dispute is "bettinaliano.com". The Complainants’ TradeMarks are the words Bettina Liano in one case accompanied by graphic matter to form a device mark. ...
2000-10-24 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
6.1 Under paragraph 4a of the Policy, the Complainant must prove three distinct elements in order to succeed with a claim for transfer of a domain name, namely;
- that the domain name 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.
6.2 Domain Name identical to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights
The domain name in issue is identical with the Complainant's NICEDAY trademark. ...
2001-01-11 - Case Details
審理および認定
処理方針第４条(a)は、申立人が次の要件について立証することを求めている：
(１) 被申立人が登録したドメイン名は、申立人が権利を有する商標またはサービス・マークと同一(identical)であること、または混同を生じさせるほど類似している(confusingly
similar ) こと；
(２) 被申立人は当該ドメイン名についていかなる権利(rights)または適法な利益
(legitimate interests)も有しないこと；そして
(３) 当該ドメイン名は悪意によって (in bad faith) 登録され、かつ使用されて いること。
...
2001-07-26 - Case Details
The burden for the
Complainant under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is to prove:
(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;
(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 used in bad faith.
...
2001-06-01 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
To succeed in their Complaint, Complainants must show that each of the conditions
of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied, namely that
1. the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service
mark in which complainant has rights; and
2. the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name,
and
3. the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
...
2001-06-12 - Case Details
The certified copy of the Respondent’s baptismal certificate and his Canadian Citizenship certificate show that his full name is as pleaded.
The domain name is not confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. A detailed analysis of the Canadian case law on confusion in the trademark context is set out in the Response. ...
2001-07-31 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that Complainants must prove each of the following to justify transfer of a domain name:
(1) that the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainants have rights;
(2) that Respondent has no legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) that the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
...
2002-04-15 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
6.1 Applicable Rules
In accordance with paragraph 15 (a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide
the complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and
in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of
law it deems applicable.
6.2 Requirements to submit an administrative proceeding pursuant to
paragraph 4.a of the Policy
In order for a claim to be submitted to a mandatory administrative proceeding,
the Complainant must prove that:
(i) the 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 Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad
faith.
6.2.1 4.a....
2002-05-31 - Case Details
The burden for the Complainant, under paragraph 4(a) of the 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;
and
- that the Respondent has no legitimate rights or interests in respect of the
domain name; and
- that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2002-04-17 - Case Details
The burden for the Complainant, under paragraph 4(a) of the 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 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.
...
2002-06-07 - 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 used in bad faith.
...
2001-11-06 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Domain Name is Identical or Confusingly Similar to Complainant’s Mark
6.1. In relation to the domain name , the relevant part of this domain name is "evisu". ...
2001-09-10 - Case Details
In addition, the Complainant must prove each element of paragraph 4(a) of the
UDRP, namely:
(i)the disputed 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)the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2003-08-11 - Case Details