Respondent
The Respondent did not
reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is, for all intents and purposes, identical to Complainant’s name “Raj Soin”. ...
2007-03-21 - Case Details
- the Respondent does make public the relationship with the Complainant, as it never claimed that it is the producer of the vehicles posted on internet site or the holder of the SUBARU trademark;
- use of the domain name is made without intention to divert consumers or to mislead them in any way, as the Respondent is carrying out activities with SUBARU vehicles;
- the Respondent is the first company in Romania that had advertised the SUBARU trademark and it can be said that the Respondent is known by the disputed domain name, even though it is not the holder of the trademark;
- the Respondent registered the domain name with the purpose of exclusively trading SUBARU products on the basis of the commercial relationship with SUBARU MOTORS HELLAS SA that was authorized by the producer to organize distribution in Romania.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is identical with a trademark in which the Complainant has rights, as the disputed domain name incorporates entirely this mark. ...
2008-01-22 - Case Details
To invoke the Policy, a Complainant must show that the domain name at issue is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights, that the Respondent lacks rights or a legitimate interest in the domain name, and that the Respondent registered and used the name in bad faith. ...
2006-09-26 - 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
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.
...
2001-06-05 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
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.
...
2001-03-09 - Case Details
Discussions and Findings
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 the 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...
2001-01-22 - Case Details
The Respondent did not file a Response to the Complaint.
6. Discussion and Findings
Identical or Confusingly Similar Domain Names
6.1. In relation to both of the domain names "harveynorman.net" and "harveynorman.org", the relevant part of these domain names is "harveynorman". ...
2000-09-27 - Case Details
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.
...
2000-12-27 - Case Details
Discussion and Finding
A. The domain names at issue are confusingly similar to trade marks to which by registration and/or use Complainants have acquired rights prior to Respondent’s registrations of the domain names. ...
2002-06-06 - Case Details
These elements are that:
(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 of the domain name; and
(iii) Respondent’s domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2001-07-25 - 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 is being used in bad faith.
...
2001-06-07 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
The burden for the Complainant under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is to prove:
(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 used in bad faith.
...
2001-06-20 - Case Details
The burden for the Complainant, under Paragraph 4(a) of the 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.
...
2002-05-10 - Case Details
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 names registered by the Respondent are identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks or service marks in which the Complainant has rights; and,
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or no legitimate interests in respect of the domain names; and,
(iii) that the domain names have been registered and used in bad faith.
...
2002-03-01 - Case Details
There is no significance in the Respondent having used the Registrar’s privacy service for the WhoIs of the
disputed domain name, which is employed to protect the registrant from malware, unsolicited commercial
email, phishing and similar abuses.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Preliminary Issue – Parties’ Supplemental Filings
Paragraph 10 of the UDRP Rules vests the Panel with the authority to determine the admissibility, relevance,
materiality, and weight of the evidence, and also to conduct the proceedings with due expedition. ...To invoke the Policy, a Complainant must show that the domain
name at issue is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights, that the
Respondent lacks rights or a legitimate interest in the domain name, and that the Respondent registered and
used the name in bad faith. ...
2024-07-29 - Case Details
Respondent has never been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, nor operated any business under the Complainant’s name or anything similar. Respondent has used the Disputed Domain Name misleadingly to divert consumers seeking information about Complainant.
...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.
...
2004-10-20 - Case Details
Complainant then found out that the Domain Name was registered in the name of Respondent, and sent a similar cease and desist letter to Respondent on July 19, 2002.
Complainant has demonstrated that at the time of the filing of the Complaint, Respondent was using the Domain Name in connection with an active web site. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established that it is the owner of three U.S. service marks consisting in the expression NATIONAL CAR RENTAL, with or without a design element, in relation to services of class 39 (reg. no. 1,534,668 of April 11, 1989, reg. no. 1,540,913 of May 23, 1989, and reg. no. 2,363,789 of July 4, 2000).
...
2002-12-10 - Case Details
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 4
In exercising their discretions in similar circumstances, previous UDRP panels generally considered, among
others, (i) whether the identity of the beneficial holder is disclosed, (ii) whether the beneficial holder submits
arguments explaining its position, or (iii) whether the relationship between the registrant of the domain name
and the beneficial holder is clear. ...case=D2007-0214
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 5
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2025-04-10 - Case Details
El primer elemento relativo a que cada nombre de dominio en disputa resulta ser idéntico o similar en grado de confusión respecto a una marca sobre la que el Promovente tiene derechos se actualiza a plenitud independientemente de que dicha marca contenga un guión intermedio.
...D2008-0183 se establece: “The Policy was adopted to deal with the problem of cybersquatting - that is, the registration of domain names consisting of, including, or confusingly similar to marks belonging to another for the purpose of profiting from the goodwill associated with the mark”. ...
2020-12-11 - Case Details
The "EVAN-PICONE" marks
The Complainant owns numerous United States and counterpart foreign trademark registrations for the mark "EVAN-PICONE" (as well as similar marks containing the words "EVAN-PICONE" or "PICONE" as formatives) on which this dispute is based (collectively the "EVAN-PICONE" marks). ...Similarity
The Complainant takes the position that the contested domain name is identical, but for the inclusion of a hyphen in the mark, and hence confusingly similar to its registered "EVAN-PICONE" marks, so as to ostensibly and likely confuse Internet users as to source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement between the Respondent's web site and the Complainant; hence, satisfying the confusing similarity requirement in paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2002-01-10 - Case Details