Parties’ Contentions
5.1 Complainant contends that:
(a) The domain names , and are identical and therefore confusingly similar to the various trademark registrations "lottomatica" that are registered in favor of the Complainant as previously stated.
...vi) The Respondent is also owner of domain names similar to renown Italian press agencies.
5.2. Respondent did not respond to the Complaint
Duly notified of the Complaint, the Respondent did not respond.
6. ...
2001-06-14 - Datos del caso
The Respondent is legitimated to sell philatelic and numismatics products from the Complainant, being also entitled to use the trademark "EDIFIL" in the trade.
The domain name is similar to and to the trademark EDIFILA.COM, and thus the use of the domain name by other company could cause confusion, due to its similarity with the domain name and the trademark EDIFILA.COM, that the Respondent holds.
...I shall examine each one of these elements in the following items:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Firstly, it must be stressed that the generic TLD ".com" cannot be taken into consideration when comparing the trademark of the Complainant and the disputed domain name. ...
2003-08-08 - Datos del caso
Discussion And Findings
Complainant’s Burden of Proof
7.1 Under Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, Complainant bears the burden of proving
all the following three elements:
(a) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service
mark in which Complainant has rights;
(b) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain
Name;
(c) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used by Respondent in
bad faith.
...Respondent has not made
any assertions or provided any evidence contradicting Complainant’s assertions
that the Domain Name is confusingly similar with Complainant’s marks. The Panel
finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar with the Hebrew Mark.
7.8 The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of Paragraph
4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2002-07-22 - Datos del caso
The Complainant has no trade mark or service mark rights which are identical or confusingly similar to the disputed domain name.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant’s role overseeing the driving system in Ireland, and its future plans, have nothing to do with the Registrant’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...A. Identical or Misleadingly Similar
The first condition in paragraph 1.1 of the Policy is that the disputed domain name is identical or misleadingly similar to a “Protected Identifier” in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2012-11-23 - Datos del caso
In order to obtain the relief requested under the Policy, Complainant must prove in the Administrative Proceeding that each of the three elements of paragraph 4(a) are present:
(i) that 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
7.4 The Panel finds that this element has been proved.
...There are a number of cases involving
what could be characterized as well-known or famous names where Complainants
failed to recover a confusingly similar Domain Name for one reason or another,
including Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v. ...
2002-08-12 - Datos del caso
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove each of the following three elements in order to obtain an order that the disputed domain name should be transferred or cancelled:
(i) the disputed 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 disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...As this is a dissenting opinion only, I shall endeavour to set out my reasons in summary form only.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
As the Panel’s reasons note, the Complainant does not have a registered trademark but relies on “Clickbetter” as an unregistered trademark.
...
2021-10-05 - Datos del caso
For completeness, the Panel notes that even if these filings
had been admitted, this would not have led to a different outcome of the dispute.
6.2. Substantive issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Procedural issue – Supplemental filings by the Parties
The Panel notes that these supplemental submissions by the Parties do not raise any relevant new facts or evidence on the substance of the dispute, and the Parties have not shown that they had been unable to address any relevant issue in their prior s...
6.2. Substantive issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-12-03 - Datos del caso
The Respondent asks for a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (“RDNH”) on the basis that the
Complainant had actual, prior knowledge of the Respondent's legitimate purpose and failed to respond to
repeated attempts at collaborative resolution.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
For the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the term “Relevant Identifier” encompasses trademarks
that are validly registered either in Andorra before the Oficina de Marques i Patents del Principat d'Andorra
(“OMPA”) or in a foreign jurisdiction.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Registered or Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-03-09 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
Under the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove on the balance of probabilities that:
- the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant
has rights;
- the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
- the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...The Panel would add, however, that even if the disallowed material had been admitted, it would have made
no difference to the outcome of this case.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-04-03 - Datos del caso
As to whether the domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights, the Respondent accepts that the words “data” and “direction” in combination in the domain names are identical to the trademark DATADIRECTION, claimed by the Complainant, but contests the right of the Complainant to the exclusive use of the words “data” and “direction” separately or in combination.
...In view of the outcome of these Administrative Proceedings it has not been necessary to hear the Complainant on this point.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
With regard to the first element of the test in paragraph 4 of the Policy, the Complainant claims that the domain names in dispute are identical to its DATADIRECTION trademark and Registered Business Name.
...
2005-05-19 - Datos del caso
These elements are that:
(i) respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which complainant has rights; and
(ii) respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) respondent’s domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Each of the aforesaid three elements must be proved by a complainant to warrant relief.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated ownership of registrations for the service marks ACCESS NURSES, ACCESS NURSING SERVICES, ACCESS HEALTHCARE, ACCESS ALLIED, A ACCESS ALLIED and A ACCESS NURSES, on the Principal Register of the USPTO, and has furnished direct evidence of use of ACCESS NURSING and ACCESS NURSING SERVICES in commerce. ...
2012-05-02 - Datos del caso
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the disputed domain name can be transferred only where the Complainant has proven that each of the following three elements is present:
(i) the disputed 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 disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established trademark rights in LAVAZZA and LAVAZZA ESPRESSO POINT. ...
2012-09-14 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trade marks, on the basis that the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) suffix, “.com” in the disputed domain name may be disregarded for the purposes of the comparison, as is customary in cases under the Policy. ...
2014-03-21 - Datos del caso
The disputed domain names are identical and/or confusingly similar to the Starwood Marks. The disputed domain names each incorporate without alteration the Complainant's SHERATON, FOUR POINTS, WESTIN, LE MERIDIEN, ST. ...On the other hand, requiring the Complainant to translate all the documents and evidence into Chinese would counter the policy consideration of ensuring that the proceeding take place with due expedition.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established it has rights in the Starwood Marks. The disputed domain names each incorporate the entirety of the SHERATON, FOUR POINTS, WESTIN, LE MERIDIEN, ST. ...
2015-11-12 - Datos del caso
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) that the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided evidence of ownership of two trademark registrations for the word mark BIOHACKS (which were both filed and registered after the registration of the disputed domain name).
...
2021-04-09 - Datos del caso
Substantive Issues
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that the disputed domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(i) the disputed domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
On the basis of the evidence introduced by Complainant and in particular with regard to the content of the relevant provisions of the Policy, (paragraphs 4(a) - (c)), the Panel concludes as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the MONSTER ENERGY marks acquired through registration. ...
2021-02-10 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings – Merits of the Dispute
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the
Domain Name:
(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which
Complainant has rights;
(ii) 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.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel declines to decide whether Complainant owns rights in a trademark. The Panel need not address
this issue because the Complaint fails on the “Bad Faith” element, discussed below.
...
2025-11-28 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed, a complainant must establish each of the
following elements:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which
the complainant has rights;
(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...However, the Panel notes that the acceptance of such has
not altered the outcome of the decision.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2025-06-27 - Datos del caso
The Complainants contend that each disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark or name in
which it has rights on the following grounds, among others. ...Accordingly, the Panel considers it is permissible for the
Complaint to be filed in relation to the First Disputed Domain Name and the Second Disputed Domain Name.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Second Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the
Policy. ...
2025-06-25 - Datos del caso
However, in these circumstances, this Panel finds appropriate to accept the Complaint as filed, and finds that
the registrant of the disputed domain name, as confirmed by the Registrar, shall be the Respondent for the
purposes of this proceeding.
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first 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...
2026-01-15 - Datos del caso