A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant, under the first requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, needs to establish that the
disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark in which it has
rights.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-07-20 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established that it is the owner of the Trademark. The registrations of the Trademark
predate the registration of the Domain Name.
...The generic Top-Level Domain “.com” is a standard registration requirement and does not prevent the
Domain Name from being confusingly similar to the Trademark.
The Panel therefore finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademark.
...
2023-07-19 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
As set forth in section 1.7 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third
Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) the standing test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively
straightforward comparison between the trademark and the disputed domain name to determine whether the
disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the trademark. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-07-12 - Datos del caso
Complainant
Complainant pleads that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered trademark
DECATHLON, since it fully incorporates Complainant’s trademark DECATHLON.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-07-13 - Datos del caso
The Panel is satisfied that the registrant of record for the disputed domain name is the Respondent and will
therefore proceed to analyze whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant must establish rights in a trademark or service
mark and subsequently establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to said
mark.
...Hence, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark
ARCELORMITTAL pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2023-09-01 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-08-31 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP, the Complainant must demonstrate that the disputed domain
name is (i) identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, (ii) in which the Complainant has
rights.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-08-30 - Datos del caso
The Panel will therefore proceed to analyze whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are
satisfied.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant must 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.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-07-27 - Datos del caso
Complainant
The Complainant contends that disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
SKECHERS trademark as it comprises of the SKECHERS trademark in its entirety. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-08-28 - Datos del caso
At the top of the Respondent’s website home page there is a OBAGI MEDICAL logo which is confusingly
similar to the mark which is used at the Complainant’s official website “obagi.com”, where it is also placed at
the top of the webpage.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
As set forth in section 1.7 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third
Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) the standing test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively
straightforward comparison between the trademark and the disputed domain name to determine whether the
disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the trademark. ...
2023-08-22 - Datos del caso
See section 4.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions,
Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under the first element, the Complainant must establish that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly
similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-04-23 - Datos del caso
page 3
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP, the Complainant must demonstrate that the disputed domain
names are (i) identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, (ii) in which the Complainant
has rights.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-04-05 - Datos del caso
The Complainant further notes that the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is confusingly
similar to the Complainant’s JOOP! Store trade mark, as it is merely a rotation, and that it is also confusingly
similar to the Complainant’s JOOP trade mark, as the disputed domain name incorporates the trade mark
JOOP in its entirety.
...The Complainant further notes that the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s JOOP! Store trade mark, as it is merely a rotation, and that it is also confusingly similar to the Complainant’s JOOP ...
...
2023-03-31 - Datos del caso
Complainant
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its EVEREST RE trademark,
and the dictionary words “ever” and “help” contribute to the confusion, because their combination reflects the
Complainant’s email address used for technical support of its Everest online payments, and the Internet
address of the Complainant’s self-service portal for its customers. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided information about its registrations of the EVEREST RE trademark and has
established its trademark rights for the purposes of the Policy.
...
2023-03-23 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, there are two requirements which the Complainant must establish, first
that it has rights in a trademark or service mark, and second that the disputed domain name is identical or
confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and
that requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2023-04-13 - Datos del caso
In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent has registered a domain name which is confusingly
similar to the Complainant’s well-known, intensely used and distinctive trademarks for BORBONE and
CAFFÈ BORBONE. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-02-27 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, there are two requirements which the Complainant must establish, first
that it has rights in a trademark or service mark, and second that the disputed domain name is identical or
confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is therefore confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademark and that the first ground of the Policy is established.
...
2023-06-06 - Datos del caso
The third element a complainant must establish
is that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establish that the disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark and
hence the first element of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...
2023-06-05 - Datos del caso
Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademark and that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is met.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-05-22 - Datos del caso
Michael
Robertson, WIPO Case No. D2000-0009).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel agrees with Complainant’s allegation that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s MICHELIN mark.
...“[T]he mere registration of a domain name that is identical or
confusingly similar (particularly domain names . . . incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a
famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith.”
...
2023-06-26 - Datos del caso