Pursuant to Article 4 of the Commission Regulation (EU) No. 2019/517 and Article B11(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
EU-law; - the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; - the
Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
6. ...
2023-12-21 - Case Details
Pursuant to Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(i)-(iii) of the ADR Rules, the Panel finds that:
The disputed domain name is 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.
...
2023-11-16 - Case Details
Identité ou similitude prêtant à confusion
Le Requérant rappelle à juste titre que, selon l’aperçu des solutions retenues par les commissions
administratives (voir Synthèse des avis des commissions administratives de l’OMPI sur certaines questions
relatives aux Principes UDRP, “Synthèse de l’OMPI, version 3.0”), lorsqu’une caractéristique dominante de
la marque concernée est reconnaissable dans le nom de domaine, le nom de domaine est normalement
considéré comme similaire au point de prêter à confusion à cette marque (when « a dominant feature of the
relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly
similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing »). Or l’appellation “ursaff” et la marque bien connue
URSSAF ne se distinguent en rien oralement et ne trouvent une différence à l’écrit qu’au terme d’un
typosquatting manifeste, classiquement sanctionné par les commissions administratives.
...
2024-03-07 - Case Details
En conséquence, la condition du paragraphe 4(a)(i) des Principes directeurs est remplie.
1 Synthèse des avis des commissions administratives sur certaines questions relatives aux Principes UDRP, troisième édition
(“Synthèse de l’OMPI, version 3.0”), section 1.10: “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.”
...
2023-06-27 - 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.
...
2024-03-13 - Case Details
Finally, the
Respondent indicated that the transfer of the disputed Domain Name could be requested after August 12,
2024.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-08-26 - 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 registrations for the Mark in the United Kingdom and the European Union, which
predate the filing of the Complaint. ...
2026-11-03 - Case Details
The Complainant’s first domain name was registered in April 2002.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights in the mark ASIANET by virtue of its Indian registered trade marks.
...
2018-10-02 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
By submitting several printouts taken from the databases of the corresponding official trademark offices of WIPO, the United States, the European Union, and Canada, Complainant has proved to the satisfaction of the Panel that it has rights in the SEATGEEK trademark for the purposes of Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). ...
2018-09-20 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has shown to the satisfaction of the Panel that it owns trademark rights in the SKYSCANNER mark. ...
2018-06-07 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's JLL marks. According to the Complainant, the Complainant's JLL mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, and the addition of the geographically descriptive term "argentina" does not preclude a finding of confusing similarity for purposes of the first element of the Policy. ...
2018-07-11 - Case Details
Pursuant to Article 21(1) of the Commission Regulation (EU) No. 874/2004 and Article B11(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 EU-law;
- the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name;
- the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
6. ...
2020-09-09 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not file a Response.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant owns various trade mark registrations around the world for its QUORA mark, including Australian trade mark registration No. 1653006 for the combined QUORA word and device mark which was registered on May 13, 2015. ...
2020-04-15 - Case Details
The Panel has authority to decide the dispute examining the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, taking into consideration all of the relevant evidence, annexed material and allegations, and performing some limited independent research under the general powers of the Panel articulated, inter alia, in paragraph 10 of the Rules.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainants indisputably have rights in the registered HUGO BOSS mark. The disputed domain name incorporates the HUGO BOSS mark in its entirety, and the ccTLD “.me” is a technical requirement, generally disregarded for the purpose of the analysis of the confusing similarity. ...
2020-11-06 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
For the complainant to succeed, the Panel must, under Paragraph 4(a) of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, be satisfied:
(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.
...
2000-05-08 - Case Details
Applicable Policy Provisions
The UDRP Policy requires the Complainant to prove each of the following three elements, in order to prevail in this proceeding:
1. That the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
2. That Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
3. ...
2000-04-10 - Case Details
In short there is no evidence at all from the Complainant other than as to the subsequent trade mark registration referred to above.
5.2 The Complainant also pleads that it "owns a chain of retail stores in Switzerland, Germany and Austria" but no details are given of these stores, whether they are named SHOPNET or what (if anything) their relevance is.
5.3 The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark "SHOPNET".
5.4 The Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the domain name. ...
2000-08-02 - Case Details
That the Complainant has rights in a trade or service mark with which the Respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar (paragraph 4(a)(i))
On the face of the Complaint as filed, the Complainants have satisfied the various requirements of this paragraph. ...
2005-05-26 - Case Details
In the absence of a Response the Panelist has exercised its discretion and decided not to admit this Supplemental Filing.
Identical or confusingly similar
Based on the evidence provided in the Complaint, the Panelist finds that the Complainant has rights in the mark VIVA LA MAMMA, which are protected under Dutch law. ...
2009-05-18 - Case Details
Consequently the Panelist determined that the proceeding should continue and a decision issued within the given term.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In the instant case there is no doubt that the first requirement of paragraph 4 a) of the UDRP has been duly met.
...
2009-02-27 - Case Details