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 Community law;
The Respondent has a legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as it has registered a domain name consisting of a dictionary expression six years before the Respondent came into existence and acquired trade name rights; and
The Respondent has not registered and is not using the disputed domain name in bad faith;
6. ...
2021-07-26 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ROYAL DRAGON SUPERIOR VODKA 5X DISTILLED and device mark.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. ...
2021-11-30 - Case Details
As to bad faith registration and use the Respondent reiterates some of the points above, asserting that there can be no confusion between the Complainant’s business and the Respondent’s intended cloud computing services purpose for the disputed domain name.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the Complainant’s name and registered trademarks; the addition of the word “cloud”, while indicative of cloud computing, does not remove the initial confusion and would, due to confusing similarity likely lead an Internet user to conclude that the site is connected to “Woolworths”. ...
2011-12-20 - Case Details
On this basis the Respondent alleges that the Complainant should have known that its Complaint could never succeed under the Policy and that the Complaint amounts to a case of reverse domain name hijacking.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has registered trade mark rights in the CROMA mark as set out above and that the substantive elements of the disputed domain name are identical to this mark. ...
2013-09-12 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contended that the disputed domain name was identical or confusingly similar to its registered trademark ROCKWOOL; that the Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests and that the disputed domain name had been registered and used in bad faith.
...
2012-05-18 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the following three elements is present:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark; and
(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 and is being used in bad faith.
...
2013-11-07 - Case Details
In the circumstances, the Panel’s decision is based upon the Complainant’s assertions and evidence and inferences drawn from the Respondent’s failure to reply.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has a trademark registration for the mark BRADESCO No. 007170424 in respect of “bank services” in class 36 of goods and services which remain in force. ...
2010-11-23 - Case Details
There is no evidence of a globally comprehensive trademark.”
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant is the registered owner of two European Community Trademarks and has demonstrated substantial publicities for the trademark surrounding the opening of the Group’s London salon. ...
2010-11-02 - Case Details
It was contended that this was precisely the type of use here.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There is no dispute that the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's trademark and adds the descriptive “fordogs”. ...
2010-07-02 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant alleges that the three requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been established in the present case, namely that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name (there being no evidence hereof any authority or licence from it to use the domain name); and that the domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith (particular reference is made here to the various services etc. that have been offered by the Respondent on its website that relate to the mining industry and which, it is contended, are likely to mislead or confuse Internet users.)
...
2010-07-16 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant owns numerous trade mark registrations for its CONTIKI trade mark including UK word
mark registration UK00002007887 registered on January 5, 1996 and Singaporean trade mark registration
T0205054I registered on May 21, 2003. ...
2023-11-28 - Case Details
For the foregoing reasons the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s TED BAKER trademark.
A. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, a respondent may establish its rights or legitimate interests in the
domain name, among other circumstances, by showing any of the following elements:
“(i) before any notice to you [the Respondent] of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to
use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering
of goods or services; or
(ii) you [the Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by
the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you [the Respondent] are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without
intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at
issue.”
...
2023-09-21 - Case Details
Pursuant to Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(i)-(iii) of the ADR Rules, the Panel finds that:
The disputed domain name is 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.
...
2023-05-09 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel accepts the Complainants’ request to consolidate the present proceedings pursuant
to the Rules, paragraph 10(e).
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainants holds valid trademark rights for the STIHL trademark, which satisfies the initial
requirement under the first element that the Complainant hold rights for purposes of the Policy. ...
2023-06-23 - Case Details
Substantive Issues: Three Elements
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-02-06 - Case Details
Therefore, the Panel allows the consolidation of the Complainants in the present proceeding.
6.2. Procedural Issue
A. 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
The Complainant has established earlier rights in the trademark IPTIQ registered in the European Union
(“EU”). ...
2024-08-30 - Case Details
Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the
language of the proceeding shall be English.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-05-03 - Case Details
Pursuant to 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. ...
2024-11-12 - Case Details
Accordingly, all references hereafter to “the Complainant” are to be read as references to BB31 Pty Ltd.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the holder of the business name “31 Broadbeach”, registered with ASIC. ...
2019-03-22 - Case Details
Furthermore, one of the filings exceeded the file size limits specified in the Supplemental Rules.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant’s pending United States trade mark application is insufficient to establish trade mark rights for the purposes of the first element – see section 1.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.
...
2018-12-24 - Case Details