Pursuant to Article 9 of the Regulation (EU) No. 2020/857 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 the national law of a Member State and/or European Union law.
...
2026-02-26 - 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.
...
2025-04-03 - 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.
...
2023-04-05 - Case Details
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s company name FIMIPAR protected in France; the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and, the disputed domain name was registered as well as used in bad faith.
...
2021-04-29 - 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.
...
2021-03-31 - Case Details
Decision
Notwithstanding the fact there appear to be extant proceedings between the parties in the High Court of Singapore which, at least to some extent, relate to the issues raised in this proceeding, the Panel would note that, absent any specific court order from the High Court of Singapore (or indeed any other court of competent jurisdiction), the Panel is required, under the Rules, to carefully review the submissions and evidence filed by the parties, and make a determination in respect of this proceeding under the Policy in favour of one of the parties.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use and registration.
...
2012-04-03 - Case Details
Therefore, the Panel decides not to accept the Supplemental Fillings submitted by the Complainant.
D. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the holder of multiple countries trademark registrations for VALTRA, some of them dating back in 1981. ...
2013-06-07 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is known by the corporate name, trade name and trademark WIPRO since 1977. ...
2018-10-29 - Case Details
The content of the supplemental filing in set out in section 3 above.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is not in dispute that the Complainant has established rights in the name “Fertiplus” by virtue of its registered trade marks and that the disputed domain name is identical thereto.
...
2018-08-03 - Case Details
Wasserman from the Court.
7. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name is identical to the term SEASONAL COMFORT. What remains for determination is whether Complainant owns trademark rights in that term.
...
2021-01-15 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
Complainant contends that:
(1) The domain name is identical, and therefore confusingly similar to Complainant’s FLUMINENSE mark, because:
Being the Complainant the title holder of the mark "FLUMINENSE", registered in Brazil, in connection to sporting events and non-profit soorting services, and beeing "FLUMINENSE" the relevant part of the disputed domain name, it is incontrovertible that the domain name at issue is identical to Complainant’s mark...
2000-10-26 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements that the Complainant must prove to merit a finding that the Domain Name of the Respondent has to be transferred to the Complainant:
(i) the 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.
...
2005-04-15 - Case Details
Arcari’s earlier interest in the Domain Name and offered
it to him at a discounted price of $4,000, which he eventually accepted, completing
the purchase on May 5, 2006.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There is no dispute that the Domain Name is identical to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2006-08-15 - Case Details
Against this background, the Panel does not have any authority to decide on
Respondent’s claim for a third party guarantee.
6.4 Transfer requirements
According to Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that:
(i) 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) 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.
...
2002-06-07 - Case Details
Company L et Cie
Case n° D2001-1253
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 Respondent is identical or anyway confusingly similar to the trademarks and other rights of the Complainant La Poste,
(b) that the Company L et Cie has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name ,
(c) that this Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith.
...
2002-01-14 - Case Details
As to the use of the disputed domain name, the Respondent states that it has published on the correspondent web site advertising and information relating to the sale of horses, equestrian property, horse training and boarding services, equine farm equipment and other similar goods and services, but has never included any reference to the Complainant and its services.
The Respondent alleges that it did not publicly offered the disputed domain name for sale or lease prior to 2015 and that a notice informing that the disputed domain name was offered for sale was published on the web site at the disputed domain name only in January 2015, after receipt of the Complainant’s unsolicited offers.
...In any event, had the Panel considered these they would not have changed the outcome of the Decision.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In this case, the Complainant does not rely on any registered trademark. As highlighted in the paragraphs above, the Complainant has filed trademark applications for NEW FORESTS and NEWFORESTS & device in Australia in February 2015, and, in August 2015, filed an application under the Madrid Protocol to extend protection of the Australian trademark NEWFORESTS & device to China, Switzerland, United States of America, the European Union, Japan and New Zealand.
...
2015-11-24 - Case Details
For the same reasons, the Panel in the instant case denies the Respondent’s request for suspension or termination of this administrative proceeding and will therefore proceed to a Decision on the Complaint and Response.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has rights in its registered trademark for the word mark STABLETABLE. ...To establish Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, a respondent would typically need to show knowledge on the part of the complainant of the complainant’s lack of relevant trademark rights, or of the respondent's rights or legitimate interests in, or lack of bad faith concerning, the disputed domain name. Evidence of harassment or similar conduct by the complainant in the face of such knowledge (e.g. in previously brought proceedings found by competent authorities to be groundless, or through repeated cease and desist communications) may also constitute a basis for a finding of abuse of process against a complainant filing under the UDRP in such circumstances.
...
2014-02-05 - Case Details
The Respondent then asserts that the Domain Name in this case is similar to the situation in a case involving the domain name "noamazon.com." In this respect, the Respondent appears to be alleging that the use of the Domain Name "nadca.org" is done to legitimately criticize the North American Die Casting Association and not to disrupt the operations of the association.
...Fourth, the Respondent asserts that the Complainant never considered obtaining a domain name registration based on the nadca acronym until they began their present "legal maneuvering."
6.Discussion and Findings
To prevail on the merits of this proceeding, the Complainant must establish, with respect to the Domain Name in question, that:
(i)the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii)the Respondent and registrant of the Domain Name 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.
...
2000-07-10 - Case Details
Having reviewed the file and considered the parties' arguments, the Panel decides to adopt a similar approach: this proceeding will be conducted primarily in English, but the Panel will consider Respondent's Korean-language submissions. ...iii) Danish-language Content on Website for Domain Name
Complainant makes the new argument in the Refiled Complaint that, with respect to the question of whether the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights, the fact that the disputed website, “www.getmore.com”, exists in a partly Danish version means that the website addresses itself to Danish consumers, which may cause confusion among Danish consumers. ...
2009-06-16 - Case Details
Considering the facts that were known to the Complainant when it commenced this action, the Respondent asks the Panel to make a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Both parties agree that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s registered trademark.
...D2000-1224 (where the condition is stated as “the respondent must show knowledge on the part of the complainant of the respondent’s right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name and evidence of harassment or similar conduct by the complainant in the face of such knowledge”), which in turn cites Plan Express Inc. v. ...
2008-09-29 - Case Details