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 rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; the Respondent has not registered and is not using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
6. ...
2021-07-09 - Case Details
The Complainant only represents roughly 25% of all the 19 trademarks in Australia under the term “affirm” and operates no active businesses in Australia;
d) the Complainant has attempted to use the .au Dispute Resolution Policy to resolve a competing rights dispute, rather than a bona fide cybersquatting dispute for which the policy was created, and accordingly it ought to have known that there was no proper basis to bring these proceedings; and
e) although failing to make out the necessary grounds under the Policy, the Complainant has used the process to harass and intimidate the Respondent.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it owns Australian trade mark registration 1898976 for AFFIRM registered from August 1, 2018. ...
2021-06-11 - Case Details
The Panel finds the Response contains information pertinent to (even if not dispositive of as such) the merits of the case, and prefers to decide the case on the basis of the most complete available record.
B. Identical of Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is identical to the LOUENHIDE trademark in which Complainant has rights. ...
2011-11-14 - Case Details
Finally the Respondent states that the Complainant has not explained why it waited six years from the date of the Respondent’s registration to initiate this Complaint and that this is a case where the Complainant has engaged in reverse domain name hijacking.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...
2011-12-19 - Case Details
In addition the Respondent submits that the Complainant falsely concocted its claim of use in the Respondent’s geographical area in order to try and support its claim.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant owns a United States Trade Mark Registration No. 3,640,656 for the word mark DEXTRA dating from January 2009. ...
2012-05-04 - Case Details
For these reasons the Panel declines to admit either Complainant’s Supplemental Filing or Respondent’s second Response and will take no account of them in its decision.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar.
Respondent concedes identity, so paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied. Use to which the disputed domain name has been put has no bearing on the Panel’s determination under this Policy head. ...
2012-03-16 - Case Details
The Panel finds that the disputed Domain Name is likely to attract customers of the Complainant seeking to access the Complainant's services or information relating thereto; this fact alone is sufficient to conclude that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's FORTUNEO trademark.”
Confédération Nationale Du Crédit Mutuel v. Equitron,
Litige OMPI No. ...
2010-05-14 - 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. ...
2023-09-22 - 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, in particular as the Respondent has given the impression
having understood the complaint, not explicitly requested for a translation of the complaint into German, and
has not taken the effort of filing a detailed response.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2023-08-02 - 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. ...
2024-05-23 - Case Details
Respondent goes on to say that as there is no way that Respondent could have knowledge of Complainant’s trademark application in Australia, it would have been impossible for Respondent to have registered the domain name in bad faith.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has filed a trade mark application for DOWNPAT: Australian Trade Mark Application No. 2051313: DOWNPAT filed on November 22, 2019. ...
2020-08-18 - Case Details
Neither the Complainant’s supplemental filing nor the Respondent’s email in reply address new matters that could not have been addressed at the outset or add anything to the Parties’ respective cases and accordingly the Panel exercises its discretion not to admit them to the record.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant owns Australian combined word and logo mark registration no. 2007508 registered on December 23, 2019, that incorporates the words “Three Best Rated”. ...
2020-05-19 - Case Details
Paragraph 4 (a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove the presence of each of the following elements: (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.
...
2000-10-18 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Pursuant to paragraph 4 (a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following in order that the Respondent be required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding:
(i) The domain name in issue is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark or service mark, 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.
...
2000-08-08 - Case Details
These premises are:
- the domain name registered by the respondent must be identical or confusingly similar to an earlier product or service mark in which the complainant holds rights.
- the respondent must have no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name; and
- the domain name must have been registered and used in bad faith.
6.2.1 Analysis of the Identity or Similarity of the Trademarks and the Domain Name
Logically disregarding the ".NET" element identifying the TLD, the absolute identity of the "GONVARRI.NET" domain name and the GONVARRI trademark is beyond doubt.
6.2.2 Analysis of the Existence or Non-Existence of Rights or Legitimate Interests in the Domain Name in Conflict held by the Respondent
The respondent's failure to reply to the complaint prevents the panel from considering its version and knowing the reasons, rights and legitimate interests that may have led it to adopt "GONVARRI.NET" as a domain name.
...
2000-09-06 - Case Details
The Respondent did not file a Response to the Complaint.
6. Discussion and Findings
Identical or Confusingly Similar Domain Name
6.1. In relation to the domain name , the relevant part of this domain name is . ...
2000-10-24 - 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 legitimate interests in respects of the domain name; and
3)the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
...
2000-08-01 - Case Details
These elements are set forth in Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy:
- the Domain Name "crystallize.com" is identical to the trademark CRYSTALLIZE applied for by Complainant, but it is not clear that Complainant has established rights in the trademark; and
- 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
- that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
- that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2000-10-13 - Case Details
Complainant
5.1 The Complainant’s contentions may be summarized as follows:
The Complainant is the well-known airline Japan Airlines and has rights in the name "JAL" (an acronym of its name) both by virtue of its numerous trademark registrations in the US and in other jurisdictions and by virtue of its international reputation.
5.2 The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark "JAL".
5.3 The Respondents have no right or legitimate interest in the domain name. ...
2000-09-04 - Case Details
Respondent disputes Complainant’s account of the 2004 telephone conversation, asserting that Complainant solicited a purchase of the disputed domain name rather than Respondent’s offering to sell it.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar.
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied. Complainant has two federally-registered United States trademarks for KAREEM ABDUL-JABBAR. ...
2008-02-09 - Case Details