Complainant
The Complainant is the owner of the registered trademark SKANDIA and maintains that the disputed domain name is identical to the trademark. The addition of the country code top level domain “.ro” to the trademark has no influence on the similarity consideration. The Complainant argues that it is highly unlikely that the trademark SKANDIA has a meaning in any language other than as a trademark identifying the Complainant as a source of origin. ...
2008-09-02 - Case Details
After a preliminary examination, the Chinese trademark office issued a notice excluding electric wire and transformers in class 9 due to a prior application for the trademark HORANGE. ...Matthew Kennedy
Sole Panelist
Date: June 8, 2108
1 An online search of the United States Patent and Trademark Office trademark database conducted by the Panel indicated that the correct trademark application number was 87447117....
2018-06-13 - Case Details
It resolves to an English language website that
displays the PIERRE CARDIN trademark and offers for sale various goods under this trademark with prices
indicated in United Arab Emirates Dirham (“AED”). ...The Respondent states that it is not attempting to use a trademark that is identical or confusingly similar to
the Complainant’s trademark, but is using the legitimately-owned PIERRE CARDIN trademark of Dr. ...
2025-09-22 - Case Details
According to a review of the trademark certificates submitted by the Complainant and the trademark details published on the online databases of the competent trademark offices, the Panel is satisfied that the trademark registrations on which the Complainant relies are valid and in force. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights in the trademark VODAFONE.
Moreover, the Panel also finds that the Complainant has proven its ownership of the trademark VODAFONE RED, based on the Community Trademark No. 11138451 and the Turkish Trademark No. 2012/74069 whose details are mentioned above.
...
2015-11-03 - Case Details
The Complainant’s registrations for its trademark SANOFI date back to the year 1988 (French trademark registration no. 1482708, registered on August 11, 1988). ...Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name reproduces its trademark SANOFI which is highly distinctive as it has no other meaning than as the Complainant’s trademark. ...
2019-08-16 - Case Details
The Complainant is the owner of multiple trademark registrations for the mark BALENCIAGA around the world. For example: United States trademark registration No. 3344631 – BALENCIAGA, with the registration date of November 27, 2007; United States trademark registration No. 1018311 – BALENCIAGA, with the registration date of August 12, 1975; French trademark registration No. 1218946 – BALENCIAGA, with the registration date of December 5, 1972; International trademark registration No. ...The mere addition of a descriptive term to an identical trademark, has been repeatedly held by previous panels as not sufficient to avoid confusion between the domain name and the trademark" (Red Bull GmbH v. ...
2011-01-07 - Case Details
It is evident from the case file that the Parties have been involved for many years in a complex trademark
dispute concerning a possible likelihood of confusion between Complainant’s trademark SWIPE and the term
“kinkyswipe” as it is included in the disputed domain name and for which Respondent undertook to acquire
registered trademark rights, e.g., with the EUIPO.
...Complainant has shown rights in respect of its SWIPE trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO
Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. Also, the entirety of such trademark is reproduced within the disputed domain
name, simply added by the term “kinky”. ...
2025-12-23 - Case Details
Petitioner
The Petitioner holds the right to, inter alia, the well-known trademark ROLEX, which is registered in Sweden as word and figurative trademarks both in the form of national trademark registrations, EU trademark registrations and international registrations designating Sweden. ...The domain name and the ROLEX trademark are thus highly similar.
The trademark ROLEX must be considered well-known, inter alia, due to the fact that the trademark has been used on exclusive watches continuously since many years and that the use has been extensive. ...
2021-05-20 - Case Details
The Complainant is the proprietor of, i.a., the following trademark registrations for the trademark MICHELIN:
- Chinese trademark MICHELIN No 136402, dated April 5, 1980, duly renewed and covering goods in class 12;
- Chinese trademark MICHELIN No 9156074, dated February 28, 2011, and covering services in class 35;
- Chinese trademark MICHELIN No 6167649, dated July 16, 2007, and covering goods in class 12;
- Chinese trademark MICHELIN No 10574991, dated March 6, 2012, and covering goods in class 16...The Panel notes that the Complainant has made a prima facie case, showing that the Respondent has not acquired trademark or service mark rights in relation to the Domain Name, nor has he been authorized by the Complainant to use the trademark MICHELIN or seek registration for a domain name incorporating such trademark. ...
2020-09-28 - Case Details
It appears likely, therefore, that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant
and its trademark when adopting her trademark and the disputed domain names.
Indeed, the Respondent has not denied knowledge of the Complainant or its trademark. ...That kind of opportunistic
behaviour, targeting the trademark significance of the Complainant’s trademark, does not qualify as good
faith under the Policy.
...
2025-03-24 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the EQUINOR
Trademark as the Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Trademark in its entirety. The Complainant
considers that the fact that the Disputed Domain Name starts with “us” and a hyphen does not prevent a
confusingly similarity with its EQUINOR Trademark. ...The EQUINOR Trademark has been in use more than four years before the Disputed Domain Name was
registered and that the Complainant has actively promoted its EQUINOR Trademark all these four years.
...
2022-12-05 - Case Details
The Complainant has also contended that KHADI is a well-known Trademark in a number of proceedings filed before the Center. Since, the disputed domain name wholly contains the Complainant’s Trademark KHADI and is therefore identical to the Complainant’s Trademark/trade name KHADI.
...Complainant’s Trademark KHADI has been found to be a well-known Trademark. The Trademark was also a subject matter of a number of UDRP decisions in:
i. ...
2021-11-08 - Case Details
The Complainant is the owner of the following trademark registrations:
- International trademark RITALIN, registration number 689728, registered on February 13, 1998; and
- European Union trademark RITALIN, registration number 002712818, registered on January 8, 2004.
...A distinguishing feature of the disputed domain name is the coined term “retalin” which reproduces the Complainant’s RITALIN trademark. In the Panel’s view the incorporation of the word “kopen” to the Complainant’s trademark does not distinguish the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark RITALIN. ...
2018-08-09 - Case Details
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SWAROVSKI trademark. It states that consumers expect to find a trademark owner on the Internet at a domain name comprising the company’s name or trademark. ...The similarity depends on many factors, including “the relative distinctiveness of the trademark and the non-trademark elements of the domain name, and whether the non-trademark elements detract from or contradict the function of the trademark as an indication of origin”.
...
2012-04-05 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant asserts ownership of rights in the trademark CAVINTON as evidenced by registration in 86 countries. Complainant argues that the disputed domain names are identical with its trademark.
...It is reasonable to presume that a party owning rights in a trademark has been known by the trademark, and thus by an identical domain name. However, that presumption is not conclusive. ...
2008-11-12 - Case Details
Factual Background
The Complainant owns a number of MICHELIN trademark registrations such as the European Union trademark registration no. 013558366 registered on April 17, 2015, European Union trademark registration no. 009914731 registered on September 27, 2011 and International trademark registration no. 771031 registered on June 11, 2001.
...The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark MICHELIN and tradename ViaMichelin. The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for the trademark MICHELIN around the world and the trademark MICHELIN enjoys worldwide reputation. ...
2019-11-14 - Case Details
While the Complainant is based in Denmark, it nevertheless employs about 40,700 employees in 75 countries and promotes and sells its products in more than 180 countries thereby generating in 2013 an annual revenue in excess of EUR 11 billion.
The NOVO NORDISK trademark of the Complainant is registered worldwide including in India since 2010. Furthermore, the Complainant has a strong Internet presence at the address of “www.novonordsik.com” along with numerous other domain names which comprise the NOVO NORDISK Trademark (herein the “NOVO NORDISK Trademark” or the “Trademark”).
...The Complainant relies on the promotion and extensive use of the highly distinctive character of its NOVO NORDISK Trademark and the presence of its Trademark on the website of the Respondent to represent that the Respondent had knowledge of its NOVO NORDISK Trademark’s use and fame in 180 countries including India where the said trademark is registered, to claim that the Respondent was well aware of its Trademark and registered the disputed domain name knowingly and in bad faith.
...
2014-11-24 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s CLARINS Trademark since the Disputed Domain Name reproduces the Complainant’s
CLARINS Trademark in its entirety with the addition of the generic word “take”, which does not prevent
confusion with the Complainant’s well-known CLARINS Trademark.
...The fact that the Respondent has incorporated the Complainant’s CLARINS
Trademark in its entirety in the Disputed Domain Name, is further evidence, that the Respondent was very
well aware of the Complainant’s CLARINS Trademark and business at the time of registration of the
Disputed Domain Name and has done so for the only purpose of creating an impression that the Disputed
Domain Name is connected with the Complainant’s CLARINS Trademark.
...
2024-07-26 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights over the trademark NB based on the trademark
registrations cited under section 4 above and the related trademark certificates submitted as Annex 6 to the
Complaint.
...The circumstance that the disputed domain name was pointed to a website featuring the Complainant’s
trademark and images of the Complainant’s products demonstrates that the Respondent was indeed well
aware of the Complainant and its trademark.
...
2022-11-17 - Case Details
- French trademark SANOFI (+device), registered under No. 92412574 on March 26, 1992.
- French trademark SANOFI, registered under No. 1482708 on August 11, 1988...- International trademark SANOFI, registered under No. 1092811 on August 11, 2011.
- International trademark SANOFI, registered under No. 1094854 on August 11, 2011...
2021-12-28 - Case Details