Considering these requirements, the Panel rules as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel holds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks
MÖLNLYCKE. ...The Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark and
the Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2024-08-28 - 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.
page 3
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establish that the disputed domain names are
identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark as it includes the
Complainant’s trademark in its entirety combined with the word “my”. ...
2022-09-16 - 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.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-09-05 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in the Complainant’s Trademark, based on its various
trademark registrations listed above in Section 4.
...As such, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
Trademark, and accordingly, paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2022-09-05 - Datos del caso
The Complainant believes the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SOREL
trademark. The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its well-known
trademark SOREL as they incorporate the whole of Complainant’s SOREL trademark. ...It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, where appropriate, will
decide consistent with the WIPO Overview 3.0.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered SOREL trademarks
owned by the Complainant. ...
2022-08-30 - Datos del caso
The Panel finds, therefore, that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MODERNA
mark for purposes of the first Policy element and concludes that the Complainant has established the first
element of the Complaint.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-08-11 - Datos del caso
The Panel determines that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MODERNA
trademark.
Complainant has established that it owns rights in the trademark MODERNA and that the disputed domain
names is confusingly similar to that trademark.
...There is scant evidence
on the record of this proceeding as to why Respondent decided to register the disputed domain name
confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark and company name. Respondent had notice and opportunity
to present evidence to the Panel regarding its motive for such registration. ...
2022-06-15 - Datos del caso
The Panel will deal with each of the requirements in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the 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...
2022-06-14 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in the Complainant’s Trademark, based on its various
trademark registrations listed above in Section 4.
...As such, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
Trademark, and accordingly, paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2022-06-03 - Datos del caso
The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s FIDELITY
trademark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established paragraph 4(a)(i) of the
Policy.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-06-02 - Datos del caso
Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a
trademark for purposes of the Policy when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar
approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name. ...D2018-2348, which concerned the domain name in which the
panel held that was confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s HMRC
trademark.
...
2022-05-31 - Datos del caso
Nevertheless, the Panel may rule in the Complainant’s favor only after the
Complainant has proven that the above elements are present.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant is required to establish that the disputed domain
name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...Therefore, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s trademark because it is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name.
...
2022-07-01 - Datos del caso
The Complainant bears the burden of proof for each of these elements.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain names are
identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly
similar to the Complainant’s LEGO marks. The Respondent’s incorporation of the Complainant’s mark in
full in the disputed domain names is evidence that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s marks. ...
2022-06-30 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights over the trademark BLACKBAUD based on the
trademark registrations cited under section 4 above.
...As indicated above, the disputed domain name, confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, has
been pointed to a website displaying pay-per-click links related to the Complainant’s market niche.
...
2022-06-29 - Datos del caso
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trademark
PRAGMATICPLAY. The mark PRAGMATICPLAY is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name. The
Panel has had little difficulty in finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark
PRAGMATICPLAY. The addition of the two letters “tw” and the hyphen “-” does not prevent the finding of
confusingly similarity.
...
2022-06-29 - Datos del caso
Further, according to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences from Respondent’s
failure to submit a Response as it considers appropriate.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the
PRINCIPAL trademark in which 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...
2022-06-27 - 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.
page 3
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.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-06-21 - Datos del caso
Complainant
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. The disputed
domain name identically adopts the Complainant’s 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...
2022-07-07 - Datos del caso
Complainant
Complainant contends, in relevant part, as follows:
- The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SODEXHO Trademark because “[t]he only
difference between the signs is the reversal of the letters H and X”; and that it is confusingly similar to the
SODEXO Trademark because “[t]he only difference between the signs is the addition of the letter H”...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-04-14 - Datos del caso
Its main arguments can be summarized as follows:
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its MIROVA trademark
because it incorporates said trademark in its entirety and the latter remains recognizable within it.
...Taking the foregoing provisions into consideration the Panel finds as follows.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant must first establish rights in a trademark or
service mark and secondly establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its
trademark.
...
2022-11-11 - Datos del caso