The
only communication forwarded by the Respondent was the before mentioned request
for extension.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established its rights in the trademark YEM KITABEVI with logo, in Turkey, by enclosing the trademark certificate issued by the Turkish Patent Office and providing proof of its use in association with its products and services.
...
2007-02-26 - Case Details
See Reply, Exhibit A.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the mark REPRODUCTIVE SCIENCE CENTER. ...
2007-11-02 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its Marks.
Complainant alleges that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. ...
2006-01-04 - Case Details
XC2 The disputed
domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. The addition
of another letter “N” does not change the way in which the word
is pronounced. ...
2006-02-14 - 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
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 disputed domain
name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2001-12-10 - 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 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 disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2002-01-11 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
In order to succeed in its application paragraph 4(a) of the Policy places on the Complainant the onus of proving that:
(i) the domain name in dispute 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 said domain name; and
(iii) the said domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2001-10-15 - Case Details
The burden for the Complainant, under paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN 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 interests in respect of the domain
name; and
- The domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
...
2001-06-07 - Case Details
And Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that, for a complaint to be granted, the Complainant must prove each of the following:
(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 no legitimate interests in respect of the domain name, and,
(iii) that the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
6.2 Absence of a response to the Complaint by the Respondent
In the absence of a response to the Complainants claims by the Respondent,
the Panel must consider those claims in the light of the evidence submitted
by the Complainant. ...
2002-03-18 - Case Details
The burden for the Complainant, under paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN 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 is being used in bad faith.
...
2002-04-16 - Case Details
To succeed in its Complaint, Complainant must show that each of the conditions
of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied, namely that
(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service
mark in which complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name,
and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith.
...
2002-06-25 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
In order for the Panel to decide whether to grant the remedy of transfer of a domain name to a Complainant under the Policy it is necessary that the Complainant prove, as required by paragraph 4 (a) of the Policy that:
(i) the contested 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 and is being used in bad faith.
...
2003-08-25 - Case Details
Gilles Rebierre
Case n° D2001-0851
DECISION
Having seen Paragraphs 4.i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules,
The Administrative Panel decides :
(a) that the Domain Name registered by the
Respondant is identical or anyway confusingly similar to the trademarks and
others rights of the complainant Société d'exploitation du Palais
des Congrès de Paris S.A.
...
2001-08-27 - Case Details
Original Arbitration Findings
In NAF 96532 the Panel refused the Complaint because:
(a) the Complainant’s and the Respondent’s marks were not identical or confusingly similar;
(b) the Respondent had a legitimate right and interest in the use of the name, Furrytails, as he had waited until after the expiry on the non-competition clause before launching his business selling resin toys. ...
2001-09-21 - Case Details
Société Dekra-ACL
Case n° D2001-1437
Decision
Having seen Paragraphs 4.i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules,
The Administrative Panel decides:
(a) that the Domain names and registered by the Respondent, under the name DEKRA-ACL, are identical or anyway confusingly similar to the trademarks and other rights opposed by the Complainant Dekra-Veritas Automobile.
...
2002-02-11 - Case Details
The Complainants further contend that in the unlikely event that the Registrants were not aware of the Complainants’ rights in its trade mark when registering the domain name, they have since been advised of such rights by correspondence, to which the Registrants have failed to respond.
B. Registrants
Identical or Misleadingly Similar
The Registrants contend that the domain name is not identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service marks in which the Complainants allegedly have rights.
...If the Complainants were concerned to protect their names and brands they should have registered marks in the relevant classes
The Complainants’ documents do not demonstrate an identical or similar mark for identical goods and/or services nor an identical or similar mark for similar goods and/or services. ...
2007-02-15 - Case Details
The Complainant is wrong to say that the disputed domain name is of no value to the Respondent independently of the Complainant's trade mark. The Respondent has sold similar brand-able domain names in the past.
The Complainant has failed in its burden to establish that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests.
...The Panel has decided not to admit the Respondent's supplemental filing because it does not add anything material to the Respondent's extensive primary submission.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is not in dispute that the Complainant has acquired rights in the mark TOBAM as licensee of the registered trade marks for that term.
...
2016-11-28 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
In terms of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for the Complaint to succeed, the Complainant must prove each of
the following:
(i) the disputed domain name is 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 disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.
...The case followed several administrative proceedings filed by other
parties against the same respondent in similar circumstances. The decision in one of the previous cases
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?...
2022-06-15 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that it owns the registered mark KILTS 4 LESS and has
traded under that name for 19 years, so that the name enjoys widespread
recognition and significant goodwill; that the Domain Name and the Respondent’s
trading name “Kilt 4 Less” are confusingly similar to its mark, its trading name and
; that it appears the Respondent acquired the Domain Name to
redirect web traffic intended for the Complainant and to profit from it, “an
impermissible case of cybersquatting”; and that, given the widespread recognition
of its name, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent had actual or constructive
knowledge of it.
5.2. ...Disregarding the
“.co.uk” suffix and the spaces, the Domain Name differs from the mark by the
single letter “s”. It is similar. The first element is satisfied. The Complainant does
not rely on paragraph 5.1.6 of the Policy, and the Domain Name is in any event not
an exact match for the mark.
6.6. ...
2026-11-06 - 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.
...This philosophy
would prevent all uses of domain names that are similar to registered trademarks
for any new business not ready to put up a website immediately upon registration
of the domain name. ...
2002-04-10 - Case Details