Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated its ownership of various registrations covering the OANDA trademark, such as U.S. ...
2021-01-25 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has shown that it has registered rights in the Trade Marks. The Domain Name is identical to the Trade Marks as it incorporates the term “Chatroulette”, of which the Trade Marks consist, in its entirety. ...
2019-05-27 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
The key issue in this proceeding is not whether the Domain Name is identical and/or confusingly similar to the Complaint’s trade mark or whether the Complainant is the true proprietor. In terms of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed the Complainant must show that:
the Respondent had no right or legitimate interest in the Domain Name;
the Domain Name was registered in bad faith; and
the Domain Name was used in bad faith.
...
2000-05-05 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
To qualify for cancellation or transfer, a complainant must prove each element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, namely:-
(i) the disputed name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2000-04-12 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
5. 1 Complainant contends that:
a) The domain name is identical, and therefore confusingly similar to the trademark REDE GLOBO, because:
i) It incorporates fully the REDE GLOBO trademark textual components, with the sole difference being the particle "com" addition.
...
2000-06-06 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The contested domain name is .
The Complainant has provided evidence that it owns valid trademark rights in the name “Crédit Mutuel”.
...
2008-08-19 - Case Details
Such conduct entitles Respondent to a finding of reverse domain name highjacking
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar.
The determination of whether a Complainant has rights in a mark sufficient to invoke the Policy under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is made at the date the Complaint is filed. ...
2007-12-07 - Case Details
In that regard and apart from judging this proceeding through mere default of the Respondent, the Panel makes the following specific findings.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The similarity between the trademarks “La Caixa” and the domain name is obvious.
...
2005-08-17 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s
contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In the Panel’s view there is no doubt that this requirement has been met, in that the dominant word element of the domain name is identical to the trademark HINANO, in which the Complainant has shown that it has exclusive rights.
...
2006-03-15 - Case Details
It
has therefore not contested the contentions made by the Complainant, and the
Panel shall decide on the basis of the Complainant’s submissions, and
all inferences that can reasonably be drawn there from (Rules, paragraph 14(b)).
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name is identical to the trademark KUONI in which the Complainant has rights (the gTLD .mobi cannot be taken into consideration when judging identity or confusing similarity).
...
2007-04-27 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark registrations, which contain the word “DOWNUNDER”.
Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with regard to the Domain Name because Respondent has not used or shown 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. ...
2006-06-21 - 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 names are 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 names; and
(iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
...
2001-04-24 - 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 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.
...
2001-03-30 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
Complainant contends that:
(1) The domain name is identical, and therefore confusingly similar to Complainant’s IBOPE mark, because:
Being the Complainant the title holder of mark "IBOPE", registered in Brazil as well as in several countries throughout the world, in connection to market and opinion research services, and being "ibope" the relevant part of the disputed domain name, it is incontrovertible that the domain name at issue is identical to Complainant’s mark...
2000-10-23 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends the following:
- The domain name [s] [is/are] identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
- The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name...
2001-08-03 - 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 in which the Complainant has rights;
(2) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to
the Domain Name; and
(3) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2001-08-08 - Case Details
Discussion
The onus is on the Complainant to prove each of the three elements set
out in paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN Policy, as follows:
(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.
...
2002-05-10 - Case Details
Pursuant to the discretion given to the Panel in Uniform Rule 12, the Panel declines to accept the unsolicited submission.
6.2 Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles the Panel is to use in determining the dispute: "A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules, and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
6.3 Since both the Complainant and Respondent are domiciled in the United States, to the extent that it would assist the Panel in determining whether the Complainant has met its burden as established by Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Panel shall look to rules and principles of law set out in decisions of the courts of the United States.
6.4 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 rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and,
(3) that the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
6.5 Paragraph 18(a) of the Uniform Rules provides that "[i]n the event of any legal proceedings initiated prior to or during an administrative proceeding in respect of a domain-name dispute that is the subject of the complaint, the Panel shall have the discretion to decide whether to suspend or terminate the administrative proceeding, or to proceed to a decision."
6.6 The Panel notes that the legal proceeding was filed three months ago and
that it was requested that such proceeding and the present UDRP proceeding be
enjoined. ...
2002-03-27 - 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.
...
2002-09-23 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
To succeed in its Complaint, Complainant must show that each of the conditions of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied, namely that
(i) The 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 the Domain Name; and
(iii) The Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith.
...
2002-11-08 - Case Details