The Panel has therefore determined that English should be the language of this proceeding.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the mark DELTA SONIC by virtue of its continuous use of the mark in US interstate commerce since 1967 and the US trade mark registration for that term in connection with the goods and services detailed therein. ...
2015-12-07 - Case Details
Those requirements are that:
(i) Respondent's domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the 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.
...
2002-03-19 - Case Details
In order to be successful, the Complainant has the burden of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that all three elements are present.
11.2 Domain Names identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s Marks
The domain name in dispute is videonet.com. The Mark owned by the Complainant is VIDEONET. ...
2000-07-25 - Case Details
It is clear from the wording of the Uniform Policy,
as well as from numerous cases decided under the Policy, that there can be such
bad faith where the domain name is used in relation to an offering of goods
or services quite different from those in relation to which the Complainant’s
trademark is registered.
Identical or Confusingly
Similar Domain Name
6.3.In relation to
the domain name "harveynorman.com", the relevant part of this domain
name is "harveynorman". ...
2000-09-28 - Case Details
These elements are set forth in Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy:
(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.
...
2001-04-12 - 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.
...
2002-05-16 - Case Details
Substantive issues
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.
...
2002-02-14 - Case Details
These elements are that:
(i) Respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the 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.
...
2003-04-30 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is virtually identical to the FORDDIRECT mark, and confusingly similar to the
famous FORD mark. The disputed domain name incorporates these trademarks with a minor misspelling,
deleting the letter “d” in the word “direct”.
...The disputed domain
name is not primarily similar to the Complainant’s brands because it is a phrase by itself.
The Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...
2022-10-21 - Case Details
Pursuant to Article 9 of the Regulation (EU) No. 2020/857 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 the national law of a Member State and/or
European Union law...
2024-02-01 - Case Details
Domain Admin and Tom Marks separately in section E, he concludes that the same result on the merits obtains whichever of these (or indeed anyone but a repeat Policy offender) is the actual or beneficial owner of the disputed domain name.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s RIMMEL marks, and the Complainant’s evidence demonstrates beyond doubt that it has rights in those marks sufficient to invoke the Policy. ...
2014-01-30 - Case Details
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.
...
2000-12-22 - Case Details
Discussions and Findings
6.1 The Policy para. 4a provides that the Complainant must prove each of the following:
h that the Respondent's domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
h the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
h the domain has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
6.2 Is a trademark required to be registered? ...
2000-05-23 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4.a. of the Policy directs that General Motors must prove, with respect to the domain name in issue, each of the following:
(i) The domain name in issue is identical or confusingly similar to General Motor’s mark in issue here, and
(ii) 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.
...
2000-10-27 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, 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; 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.
...
2001-01-16 - 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 legitimate interests in respect of the domain name, and,
(iii) that the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
6.2 Language and absence of a response to the Complaint by the Respondent
First of all the Panel must take into consideration the allegation made by the Respondent about the language of the proceeding and the fact of the absence of a response by the Respondent.
...
2001-12-14 - 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.
...
2002-01-10 - Case Details
These elements are as follows:
(i) Respondent's
domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark
in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) Respondent
has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the domain name; and
(iii) Respondent's
domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2002-10-15 - Case Details
Respondent requests the Panel to find against Complainant.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Importantly, Complainant either reviewed the earlier cases involving Respondent in similar contexts and
elected not to disclose the outcomes in its Complaint, or perhaps listed the decisions without reviewing them.
...
2026-07-20 - Case Details
Bearing in mind the Panel’s observations above on the
Complainant’s ability to have inserted these details into the amended Complaint, the Panel considers that the
Complainant has already received a fair opportunity to present its case and that the Panel must now proceed
to a Decision without further delay, in order to ensure due expedition.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...These future business purposes are unspecified, and it is unclear to the Panel
whether the Respondent means by this statement that the proposed services will be similar to those which it
says that it currently provides. The Panel will examine whether the Respondent’s submissions might
disclose a case in terms of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, namely that before any notice to it of the dispute,
the Respondent has made use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a
name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or
services. ...
2024-03-08 - Case Details