About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

Full Text Search on WIPO Panel Decisions

Found 57807   document(s)s (0.054 sec)

Rows

<<  <  9221 - 9240  >  >>

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2014-2035 for redbull.vodka html (19 KB)

It seems clear to me that the Site is not identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark. The Respondent is a successful and critical visual artist, based in Los Angeles. ...D2012‑2353, the then panel had “no difficulty” in concluding that the Complainant’s mark was confusingly similar to . The case for confusing similarity in this case is even stronger. ...

2015-02-13 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2011-0088 for evel1.com, eveloneclothing.com, evelwear.com html (20 KB)

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainant has provided sufficient evidence showing that it is the owner of the Evel Knievel Marks. ...Prior UDRP panels have recognized that the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety may be sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s registered mark. AT&T Corp. v. William Gormally, WIPO Case No. D2005-0758 (finding confusingly similar to ATT); Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. ...

2011-03-17 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2005-0841 for besilucollection.com html (21 KB)

Michael Bosman, WIPO Case No. D1999-0001, A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Domain Name The Complainant is required under Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy to prove that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. ...Whilst the disputed domain name is not identical to the Complainant’s registered service mark, this Panel finds that it is confusingly similar thereto, notwithstanding the addition of the word “collection”. It is well established that a domain name composed of a trade mark coupled with a generic term may yet be regarded as confusingly similar to the trade mark: Yahoo! ...

2005-11-04 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2000-1500 for microsofthome.com html (20 KB)

Complainant further contends that the Domain Name is identical with or confusingly similar to the MICROSOFT mark pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). Respondent has not contested the assertions by Microsoft that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the MICROSOFT mark. ...Therefore, the Sole Panelist finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the MICROSOFT mark pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interest. ...

2001-01-30 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2003-0358 for granddictionaire.com, grandictionnaire.com html (20 KB)

Domain name found to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s PLAYBOY TV NETWORKS trademark. Royal Bank of Canada .v. Personal [WIPO Case No. D2001-0761]. Domain name found to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s ROYAL BANK OF CANADA trademark. Ultimate Electronics Inc .v. Phayse Inc [WIPO Case No. ...

2003-07-30 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2003-0860 for mag-nifique.com html (21 KB)

Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its MAG and MAGNASWEET trademarks because it uses the term "MAG" and deliberately sets this off from the remaining portion of the domain name with a hyphen. ...The Panel determines that the disputed domain name is not confusingly similar to "MAG" or "MAGNASWEET" within the meaning of Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. Having determined that Complainant has not established rights in a trademark which is identical or confusingly similar to the disputed domain name, the Panel need not determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests or has registered or used the disputed domain name in bad faith. ...

2003-12-19 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2000-0836 for freencaafootballpicks.com, freencaapicks.com, ncaabasketballbracket.com, ncaabasketballbrackets.com, ncaabasketballlines.com, ncaabasketballodds.com, ncaabasketballpicks.com, ncaabasketballschedule.com, ncaabasketballscores.com, ncaabasketballstats.com, ncaabasketballtournamentbracket.com ... html (22 KB)

Application of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy to the facts Identical or Confusingly Similar Domain Names The UDRP Rules require that the Complaint "specify" the trademarks on which it is based and "for each mark, describe the goods or services, if any, with which the mark is used." ...Thus the NCAA has not met its burden of proving that names 21-32 listed below are identical or confusingly similar to the NCAA trademark. Respondent’s Rights or Legitimate Interests in the Domain Names Complainant asserts that Respondent has no legitimate interest in the domain names. ...

2000-12-01 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2002-0559 for bellouth.net html (22 KB)

D2002-0439 (ordering transfer of and because confusingly similar to ); Pfizer Inc. v. Phizer’s Antiques, Case No. D2002-0410 (ordering transfer of because confusingly similar to Pfizer); OfficeMax, Inc. v. ...D2002-0354 (ordering transfer of because confusingly similar to OFFICEMAX); Time Warner Entertainment Co. v. Zuccarini, WIPO Case No. D2001-0184 (ordering transfer of , , because confusingly similar to Harry Potter, Looney Tunes, and Scooby-Doo). ...

2002-09-03 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2024-5090 for whatsappog.download pdf (228 KB)

For the above reasons, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...In the present case, the Panel must decide whether the Complainant has introduced elements of proof, which allow the Panel to conclude that its allegations are true. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well established in previous UDRP decisions that, where the disputed domain name incorporates a complainant’s registered trademark, this may be sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy. ...

2025-01-27 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2007-1488 for fitbearing.com html (35 KB)

Parties' Contentions A. Complainant Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainant asserts that the mark FIT BEARINGS has become a distinctive identifier of Complainant's products. ...Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trade mark. The Panel finds for Complainant on the first part of the test. ...

2007-12-27 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2021-1486 for ejuicedb.com html (35 KB)

Also frivolous is the Respondent’s argument that the disputed domain name is not confusingly similar to the JUICEDB trademark because, even though they differ by one letter, “that letter makes all the difference.” ...There is no question that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar for purposes of the Policy and that the Respondent was operating a very similar website in the exact same industry. ...

2021-07-19 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2022-2042 for 02-virgin.com pdf (179 KB)

Substantive Issues A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant must, firstly, establish rights in a trademark or service mark and, secondly, establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. ...Privacy Protection / Muhammad Abubakar /or Domain & Hosting Provider Case No. D2022-2042 A. Identical or Confusingly Similar B. Rights or Legitimate Interests C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith...

2022-08-18 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2022-3492 for equifx.com pdf (208 KB)

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has rights in the EQUIFAX trademark. The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to this trademark. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and hence the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been fulfilled. ...

2022-11-15 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2015-1451 for legocafe.net html (31 KB)

Therefore, the Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's LEGO Trademarks. (ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. ...B. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant is required to establish the two following elements: (1) that it has trademark rights, and, if so, (2) that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark. ...

2015-11-10 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2025-2504 for idf-regularisation.com, iledefrance-moblites.com, iledefrance-mobllites.com pdf (149 KB)

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Ownership of a trademark registration is generally sufficient evidence that a complainant has the requisite rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...Respondent 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar B. Rights or Legitimate Interests C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith 7. Decision...

2025-09-10 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2025-5267 for thegatortonneaucover.com pdf (145 KB)

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...It is also well established that the addition of a gTLD, such as “.com”, is typically disregarded when determining whether a domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark as such is viewed as a standard registration requirement. ...

2026-02-04 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2023-4473 for sanofilndialtd.com pdf (149 KB)

Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the f irst element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar B. Rights or Legitimate Interests C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith 7. Decision...

2024-01-17 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2023-4630 for carrefour8.com pdf (180 KB)

page 3 A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Ownership of a trademark registration is generally sufficient evidence that a complainant has the requisite rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...Respondent 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar B. Rights or Legitimate Interests C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith 7. Decision...

2024-01-16 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2006-0850 for casinowesternunion.com html (16 KB)

Complainant The following contentions are summarised from the Complaint. Identical or confusingly similar The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark WESTERN UNION. ...These elements are discussed in turn as follows. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is clear that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s WESTERN UNION mark. ...

2006-09-26 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2009-1298 for sapcrossing.com html (15 KB)

Complainant states that no response was received to either communication. Complainant asserts that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SAP trademark as it fully incorporates the SAP trademark and that the addition of the additional word “crossing” does not provide sufficient differentiation from the SAP trademark. ...In any event, the Domain Name contains the trademark SAP in combination with the descriptive word “crossing”. It is found that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SAP trademarks in which Complainant has rights regardless of the fact that Respondent has added the descriptive term “crossing”. ...

2009-11-24 - Case Details