It denies having registered and used the domain names in bad faith.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain names and are identical to the trademark KAMBLY in which the Complainant has rights in Switzerland, the United States of America and may other countries, such as Canada. ...It continued: "The basis for the above amount is based on domain name value and sales of similar domains by broker services. It is our opinion that this is below market value."
In addition to that, the Respondent offered the option of pursuing an aggressive Internet commerce and national mail order program for KAMBLY products with the Complainant.
...
2004-03-19 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
This is a difficult case to resolve for several reasons, including a recent spate of UDRP panel opinions under a modified approach to determining bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated longstanding trademark rights in the word SPORTO, and the disputed domain name is identical to this term. ...Rugs of the World Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1856, for a similar holding in closely analogous circumstances....
2010-03-05 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is identical but for deletion of the definite article "the" and therefore confusingly similar.
2. The Complainant has never authorized the Respondent to use its marks, and the Respondent has never been commonly known by any phrase containing GREAT COURSES. ...
2014-06-25 - Case Details
The Panel exercises its discretion to accept this submission into the record as it raises, in particular, certain new factual issues as noted below concerning the use of the website at the disputed domain name.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Second Complainant has demonstrated that it owns a registered Australian trade mark for the word mark DASHING under trade mark registration number 1649260 filed on October 7, 2014. ...
2016-06-21 - Case Details
The Panel believes that this would be the equitable and most expeditious way of proceeding, and does not see that the Respondent will be prejudiced by the Panel's decision in regard to this issue.
6.2 Substantive Issues:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established it has trade mark rights in NSBANK. The identical mark been incorporated into the disputed domain name in its entirety and is identifiable therein. ...
2017-05-03 - Case Details
The Panel may also conduct limited independent research pursuant to its general powers,
as provided, inter alia, in paragraph 10 of the Rules.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2026-06-15 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different disputed domain
name registrants (referred to below as “the Respondent”) in a single proceeding.
6.3 Findings on the Merits
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2026-06-25 - Case Details
In any event, even if the Panel
had admitted the Respondent’s supplemental filing, it would not have affected the outcome of this
proceeding.
6.2 Substantive Elements of the Policy
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.
Disregarding the Second-Level Domain and country code Top-Level Domain, the disputed domain name is
identical to the Trade Mark.
...
2026-01-02 - Case Details
Das Beschwerdepanel stellt daher fest, dass der streitige Domainname mit der Marke der
Beschwerdeführerin verwechslungsfähig ähnlich („confusingly similar“) ist. Die erste Voraussetzung der
Richtlinie ist daher erfüllt.
B. Rechte oder berechtigte Interessen
Absatz 4(c) der Richtlinie nennt beispielhaft Umstände, unter denen eine Beschwerdegegnerin Rechte oder
berechtigte Interessen an einem Domainnamen nachweisen kann. ...
2026-09-17 - Case Details
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.1/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.1/
page 5
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2026-07-17 - Case Details
Pursuant to Article 21(1) of the Commission Regulation (EU) No. 874/2004 and
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.
...
2022-09-09 - Case Details
Pursuant to Article 21(1) of the Commission Regulation (EU) No. 874/2004 and
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.
...
2022-09-09 - Case Details
I use PPC only to recover the amount I spent.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is uncontested that Complainant has trademark rights in the “CANVA” Mark by virtue of the trademark registrations mentioned above.
...
2021-10-05 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed the Complainant must satisfy the Panel that:
(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 was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2023-02-24 - Case Details
Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that English shall be the language of the proceeding.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use and registration which predate by many years the date of registration of the disputed domain name by the Respondent.
...
2011-03-09 - Case Details
Since paragraph 4(a)(i) requires Complainant to prove that the disputed domain name “is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights,” and such rights have not been proven here, the Panel need not address any issues under paragraphs 4(a)(ii) or 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
...
2012-11-09 - 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.
3 2 (i) La décision sera exécutée par le Registre dans les trente (30) jours suivant la notification de la décision aux Parties, à moins que
le Défendeur engage une procédure judiciaire dans une Juridiction de compétence mutuelle, telle que définie au paragraphe A(1) des
Règles ADR.
...
2023-08-29 - Case Details
Considering the above, to assist the Panel, and for the sake of the completeness of this proceeding, the
Panel exceptionally determines that it will admit the Complainant’s supplemental filing.
6.2 Substantive Elements of the Policy
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.
...
2023-09-04 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant contends it has (common law) rights in the name TEXAS MEDIA PROPERTIES, which it has
used as a business name since 2009. ...
2023-05-08 - Case Details
In this regard (and noting also that this is not a point expressly taken by the Respondent
in this proceeding), the Panel notes also that there is no requirement under the Eligibility Rules for the
Complainant to have been the owner of an Australian Registered Trade Mark at the time of registration of the
disputed domain name.
6.2 Substantive Elements of the Policy
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.
...
2023-06-21 - Case Details