The Complainant says that the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the SEMINOLE CASINO trademarks.
The Complainant says that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the term “seminole casino”.
...
2019-10-29 - Case Details
The Panel refers to the co-Complainants as "Complainant."
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant asserts rights in the service mark and trademark "TENERIFE."
This word describes a land territory that is a province of Spain. ...
2003-09-23 - Case Details
Complainant makes an obtuse reference at Page 8, Paragraph C(iv)(a) and (v) of the Complaint to ‘renewal’ of the Domain Name, and makes a similar reference, without explanation at Page 7, Paragraph B(v). It is well established that renewal of a domain name by the same registrant does not amount to a new registration for the purposes of the Policy (See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.9).
...Complainant wanted to buy the disputed domain name and it was only after that didn’t work, that it concocted this Complaint and proceeded headlong without conducting any basic due diligence.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
With a printout from the USPTO’s trademark database for Reg. No. 3,308,883, Complainant has shown to the satisfaction of the Panel that for purposes of Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) it has rights in the WEEDS service mark.
...
2017-12-01 - 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 legitimate rights or interests in respect of the
domain name; and
- The domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
...The majority of the Panel considers this case very similar to the
case (supra).
The quotation from that case mentioned in the summary of the Respondent’s submissions
is apposite. ...
2002-06-14 - Case Details
The Complaint
Turning now to the substance of the Complaint:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided extensive evidence of its various trade mark registrations, both in Turkey and worldwide (including in Montenegro and the United States), its reputation under the trade mark AKBANK and its registration for domain names which use the trade mark AKBANK, for example . ...
2009-12-07 - Case Details
Accordingly, if an Internet user seeking to contact the Complainant at its Website was to misspell or mistype the domain name by leaving out an "N", that person would be directed unknowingly to the Respondent website. The close misspelling at issue here is confusingly similar to the Complainant mark. […] See, e.g., Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. v. John Zuccarini and The Cupcake Patrol a/ka Country Walk a/k/a Cupcake Party, (
WIPO Case No. ...
2014-12-17 - Case Details
（参见WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“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.”）
...
2014-07-29 - Case Details
case=D2007-0214
https://www.wipo.int/en/web/amc/domain-name-disputes/overview/index
page 4
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2026-09-11 - Case Details
Its duty is to accept the previous finding unless and until the Complainant
has discharged the heavy onus of establishing the right to relitigate on the
criteria discussed above.
9.2 The Policy paragraph 4a provides that the Complainant must prove each of
the following in order to succeed in an administrative proceeding:
- that the Respondent's 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.
9.3 The Policy paragraph 4c sets out circumstances which, in particular but
without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved shall demonstrate the
respondent's rights or legitimate interest in the domain name in issue.
9.4 The Policy paragraph 4b sets out circumstances which, again in particular
but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present shall be evidence
of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.
9.5 As stated, the circumstances set out in paragraphs 4b and 4c of the Policy
are not exclusionary. ...
2003-05-07 - Case Details
Dealing with each of the requirements in turn:
Paragraph 4(a)(i) – Whether the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The respondent’s second level domain name ist identical to the complainant’s trademark.
...
2000-07-20 - Case Details
The Panel finds that the domain name recordati.com is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark registration for RECORDATI.
Complaint:
(ii) The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name recordati.com.
...
2000-07-24 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed Complainant must satisfy the Panel that:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2019-01-04 - Case Details
Further, the Statement of Use filed by the Respondent with the USPTO in support of his application for a trademark registration of MISS WORLD WIDE WEB constitutes a clear use or intended use by the Respondent of the MISS WORLD mark in the course of trade to promote services identical or similar to those carried on by the Complainant and for which the MISS WORLD mark is registered (in the US and elsewhere), which is a use of the domain name in bad faith. ...Discussion and Findings
Domain Name Identical or Confusingly Similar to Complainant’s Marks
6.1. The relevant part of the domain name the subject of this Complaint is . ...
2001-04-09 - Case Details
It is therefore relevant to consider the effects of a domain name registration and use in relation to the registration and use of identical and confusingly similar trade marks in other countries. Equally, it is not conclusive against a complaint that the Complainant’s mark could not have been registered in a particular country. ...b) Refuerza la presunción de mala fe en el registro el hecho (alegado por la propia demandada) de haber registrado la misma como nombres de dominio también las firmas (marcas de hecho) de muchos otros escritores y artistas intérpretes musicales vivos y activos en el mercado de "contenidos". En caso similar anterior, idéntica circunstancia fue considerada por el panel evidencia de una c...
2001-02-27 - Case Details
Usted estará obligado a someterse a un procedimiento administrativo obligatorio en caso de que un tercero (un "demandante") sostenga ante el proveedor competente, en cumplimiento del Reglamento, que
i) usted posee un nombre de dominio idéntico o similar hasta el punto de crear confusión con respecto a una marca de productos o de servicios sobre la que el demandante tiene derechos; y
ii) usted no tiene derechos o intereses legítimos respecto del nombre de dominio; y
iii) usted posee un nombre de dominio que ha sido registrado y se utiliza de mala fe.
...It is therefore relevant to consider the effects of a domain name registration and use in relation to the registration and use of identical and confusingly similar trade marks in other countries. Equally, it is not conclusive against a complaint that the Complainant’s mark could not have been registered in a particular country. ...
2001-02-27 - Case Details
It is therefore relevant to consider the effects of a domain name
registration and use in relation to the registration and use of identical and
confusingly similar trade marks in other countries. Equally, it is not conclusive
against a complaint that the Complainant’s mark could not have been registered
in a particular country. ...b) Refuerza la presunción de mala fe en el registro el hecho (alegado por la
propia Demandada) de haber registrado la misma como nombres de dominio también
las firmas (marcas de hecho) de muchos otros escritores y artistas intérpretes
musicales vivos y activos en el mercado de "contenidos". En caso similar
anterior, idéntica circunstancia fue considerada por el panel evidencia de una
conducta contraria a la Política (Nota
22).
...
2001-02-27 - Case Details
D2008-0183: “The Policy was adopted to deal with the problem of cybersquatting - that is, the registration of domain names consisting of, including, or confusingly similar to marks belonging to another for the purpose of profiting from the goodwill associated with the mark”.
5 En INTOCAST AG v. ...
2012-11-06 - Case Details
Pursuant to Article 21(1) of the Commission Regulation (EU) No. 874/2004 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 national law of a Member State and / or European Union law.
...
2021-05-20 - Case Details
The Respondent registered the contested
domain name without permission or authority from Complainant.
5.Parties’ Contentions
A.Complainant
i.Similarity
The Complainant contends that the contested domain name is identical
and confusingly similar to the Complainant's Marks inasmuch as that
name includes the Complainant's mark "KW".
...
2002-04-22 - 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.
...
2000-11-29 - Case Details