In relation to the element described in paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy the Respondent acknowledges that the Domain Name "is similar to trade marks in which the Complainant has rights". The Respondent goes on to assert that "this might also be said of other registered domain names, for example, kosmea.sk and kosmea.net". ...The Panel has paid no regard to material not relevant to the elements set out in paragraph 4 of the Policy.
7.2. Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’ Mark
The domain name in dispute is kosmea.com. It comprises only "kosmea" together with the .com TLD designation.
...
2000-10-04 - Case Details
Similarity
The Complainant takes the position that the contested domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its registered mark as to likely confuse Internet users who may believe they are doing business with the Complainant or with an entity whose services are endorsed by, sponsored by, or affiliated with the Complainant; hence, satisfying the confusing similarity requirement in paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
...Hence, any use to which either the Respondent or Bestnet, Inc. were to put of the term NET WIZARD, in connection with services identical or similar to those with which the Complainant is using its mark, would directly violate the exclusive trademark rights now residing in the Complainant -- rights which began accruing to the Complainant some 2 1/2 years prior to the date on which the contested domain name was registered. ...
2001-04-11 - Case Details
The Panel now proceeds to address the Complaint and Response as follows.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant asserts that it is a Japanese company which manufactures and sells a range of products including heaters, air conditioners, dehumidifiers, air cleaners and the like. ...In light of Complainant’s assertions and lack of any denial by Respondent that Complainant has trade mark rights the Panel accepts that Complainant’s Trade Mark is identified with Complainant and that an unrelated entity or person using a similar domain name may potentially lead to members of the public being confused and deceived.
Complainant argues that the Domain Name is the same as Complainant’s Trade Mark. ...
2015-07-08 - Case Details
The disputed domain name differs from that mark only by deletion of the hyphen between the two names and is thus obviously confusing similar. The mark is distinctive and the Respondent, a former employee, selected the disputed domain name for its similarity.
2. ...D2001-0903, because (among other things) it sells third party products at the disputed domain name, and second that the minority view “that, without express authority of the relevant trademark holder, a right to resell or distribute that trademark holder’s products does not create a rightto use a domain name that is identical, confusingly similar, or otherwise wholly incorporates the relevant trademark” should apply to this case. Ibid.
3. ...
2015-04-23 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent states that it registered the Domain Name in good faith because it incorporates a highly valuable common female first name, similar to hundreds of other domain names it has registered, and it has used the Domain Name both in connection with the bona fide offering of goods and services and for a legitimate purpose.
...The reasons for this conclusion are articulated below.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
As noted above, Complainant asserts that it has been in business in Spain since 1923. ...
2016-06-23 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...https://www.wipo.int/en/web/amc/domain-name-disputes/overview/index
https://www.wipo.int/en/web/amc/domain-name-disputes/overview/index
page 7
Moreover, the disputed domain name has been redirected to a website offering services similar to the ones
provided by the Complainants under the TRADEVIEW mark in the financial sector and the Panel also noted
the Complainants’ asserted concerns as to the use of the disputed domain name for fraudulent activities
given the field in which they operate. ...
2026-09-01 - Case Details
e) Respondent did not offer to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar.
Respondent raises one serious issue under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. Complainant asserts that it acquired rights (including trademark rights) to “Atlas Shrugged”, at least in respect to movies, by means of an assignment that took place in 1992. ...D2000-1269, cited in the Complaint. The basic factual pattern is similar: complainant held exclusive rights to make a motion picture of a well-known novel6 and respondent registered a domain name that incorporated the critical portion of the novel’s name. ...
2011-06-08 - Case Details
You agree that, if the registration or reservation of your domain name is challenged by a third party, you will be subject to the provisions specified in the Dispute Policy in effect at the time of the dispute.”
Arbitration or similar agreements are perfectly legal in Texas,2 even in contracts of adhesion,3 and submission to such a proceeding raises no issue of confiscation or denial of due process of law.4 This longstanding principle applies equally to governmental entities, unless of course there exists a statutory restriction to the contrary. ...A suspension or termination will accomplish nothing and needlessly delay resolution of the subject of this administrative proceeding – Respondent’s entitlement (or not) to the disputed domain name.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Similarity is obvious, as the disputed domain name incorporates as its dominant feature Complainant’s shorthand name Collin College, a term in which Complainant claims trademark rights. ...
2011-06-07 - Case Details
En la misma línea se pronunciaba el Centro en Ken’s Foods Inc. v. kens.com,
Caso OMPI No. D2005-0721, al resolver un caso muy similar al presente:
“The primary rule in relation to domain name registrations is ‘first come, first served’, to which the Policy provides a narrow exception. ...Notwithstanding the Complainant’s contention that the KEN’S mark is distinctive in relation to the particular category of goods and services for which the mark is used, it is nonetheless a personal name – ‘Ken’ – which is also the Respondent’s given name.3 The Complainant concedes that the Respondent has a legitimate interest under paragraph 4(c)(ii) in maintaining a weblog under a domain name that reflects his personal name, but argues that the Respondent should not be permitted to use any form of his name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. This is little more than a restatement of the Complainant’s argument that its trademark rights entitle it to the exclusive use of KEN’S as a domain name. ...
2011-08-30 - Case Details
The packaging of the 1000g product shown on both websites is:
The packaging for the tea bag product is similar, but in English.
The most notable difference between the websites is that the “Contact” page for the first disputed domain
name provides contact details for the First Respondent while the “Contact” page for the second disputed
domain name provides contact details for a Mr. ...Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to divest the Respondents of the disputed domain names,
the Complainant must demonstrate each of the following:
(i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which
the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and
(iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
...
2023-06-23 - Case Details
Under the Complainant’s view such correspondence qualifies a fraudulent attempt by the Respondent to pressure the Complainant to buy the disputed domain name at a premium price, to avoid the risk and cost of litigation, misrepresenting a project that appears to never have existed and only corroborates with the Respondent’s bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy to target the Complainant by taking advantage of the similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s NOVATEL trademark to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant at a price likely in excess of its out-of-pocket costs.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights in the NOVATEL trademark.
Section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 notes that the consensus of a relatively straightforward comparison between the disputed domain name and the complainant’s trademark so as to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name.
...Whereas the translation provided by the Complainant reads:
The trademarks on which the opposition is based, A 651984 NOVATEL, M 2361774 NOVATEL DIGITAL, M 2932422 NOVATEL and M 3072227 NOVATEL, are taken into account as there is a high wording similarity and they protect similar or very related goods and services when compared with those claimed by the trade name being studied, hence likelihood of confusion and association will arise between the signs.
...
2019-10-18 - Case Details
Rather, the Center has received certain registrant data from the concerned registrar in reply to our request for registrar verification which differs from that seemingly contained in the WhoIs at the time the Complaint was filed, and we have provided that information to the Complainant.
The Center would note that in past similar circumstances, Complainants have typically (1) amended the Complaint to add the disclosed underlying registrant as (co-)respondent (i.e., in the alternative), (2) amended the Complaint to replace the privacy or proxy registration service with the underlying registrant, or (3) expressed a preference not to amend, and to rather proceed with the Complaint as filed, confirming that in the Complainant's view, the privacy or proxy registration service be regarded as the sole respondent. ...The Panel is also influenced by the obvious case of typosquatting shown on the record, as discussed in the following section, which calls for immediate resolution of the merits.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant's evidence has established both elements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...
2009-05-22 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
The Complainant must prove the elements set out in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy:
(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 to the Domain Name; and
(iii) Respondent’s domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...In previous cases in which a panel ordered transfer of a domain name based upon a trafficker’s duty to undertake a reasonable investigation and found bad faith, either the domain name at issue was distinctive (and not a common word or phrase)3 or the respondent had been found frequently to have ignored others’ trademark rights, as evidenced by losing domain names in previous Policy proceedings.4 Where neither of these circumstances obtained, the panel adhered to the ordinary rule that actual knowledge is required and denied the complaint.5 To our knowledge, no panel has ever placed a duty upon a person or entity that regularly buys and sells domain names to investigate prior ownership or to search similar domain names in the absence of knowledge or imputed knowledge of the Complainant’s mark. In the circumstances of this proceeding we similarly decline to do so.
...
2007-08-22 - Case Details
a) of the
Policy directs that complainants must prove, with respect to each domain name
in issue, each of the following:
(i)The domain name
is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which complainants have rights,
and
(ii)Respondents have
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.
...We
note that a number of other Panels have made similar findings, and it seems
that a broad consensus on this issue is now emerging. See e.g. Backstreet
Boys v. ...
2001-12-11 - Case Details
The Respondent was never related with a private, social or commercial activity identified with the word "embraco" or with any other word or phrase similar to or including "embraco".
On March 23, 1998, Complainant sent a letter notifying Respondent of the companyComplainant’s rights on the EMBRACO´s rightstrademark and alerting Respondent that Complainant considered Respondent´s registration of the "embraco.com" to be trademark infringement. ...Parties' Contentions
5.1 Complainant contends that:
a) The domain name "embraco.com" is identical, and therefore confusingly similar to the trademark EMBRACO, because there is an absolute similitude between the word "embraco" in the trademark and in the domain name.
...
2000-12-20 - Case Details
It is also important to note that the domain name register does not involve the use of registered names in order to advertise or market similar goods or services. As a line of business, keeping and maintaining a domain name register does not differ from publishing a telephone directory or keeping an address register and selling addresss services.
...Paragraph 4(a) of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy lists three tests which a complainant must satisfy in order to succeed:
(i) the 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 domain name has been registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith.
...
2001-02-01 - Case Details
El nombre de dominio en disputa es idéntico al signo distintivo POLAREA y similar en grado de confusión al signo distintivo POLÁREA RESIDENCES, siendo éstos los elementos distintivos predominantes dentro del mismo. ...El registro de un nombre de dominio idéntico o similar en grado de confusión a pesar de tal conocimiento real o presunto, manifiesta un registro de mala fe según la Política. ...
2014-07-28 - Case Details
Decision
The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use and registration which predate the date of registration of the disputed domain name.
...
2014-08-20 - Case Details
The Panel believes that the Respondent is not prejudiced by the language of the proceeding being English.
Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established it has rights in the CHAPOUTIER trade mark. The entire mark has been incorporated in the disputed domain names and the only difference lies in the generic Top-Level Domains (“gTLDs”) “.top”, “.club” and “.vip”. ...
2016-10-26 - Case Details
Where a complainant is represented by able intellectual property counsel who, even on a rudimentary examination of the Policy and its application in this area should have appreciated that the complaint could not succeed, Reverse Domain Name Hijacking may be found.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the mark BOON by virtue of its registered trade mark for that term. ...
2015-06-29 - Case Details