Paragraph 4(a) of the .UA Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following: (i) the
disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a 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 or is being used in bad faith.
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 6
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-07-16 - Datos del caso
Paragraph 4(a) of the .UA Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following: (i) the
disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a 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 or is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant holds legitimate rights in the DELL mark, which are substantiated through its registered
trademarks and unregistered trademark rights that have been acquired through extensive and long-term
usage.
...
2023-11-20 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to divest a respondent of a domain name, a complainant
must demonstrate each of the following: (i) the 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 domain name; and (iii) the domain name has been registered and is
being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, “[a] Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis
of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules
and principles of law that it deems applicable”.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant relies on claimed common law rights in his own name, Shahryar Oveissi, as an
unregistered service mark.
...
2023-05-12 - 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.
...For example, the Complainant says at one point that the Respondent’s claim to have registered the domain name in 2005 is “incredible[”] and “against the weight of all evidence,” and suggests that something in the RICO complaint in the Texas court shows that there has since been a change in ownership of the Disputed Domain Name, but the Complainant later concedes that “[the] Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2005.”
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has submitted evidence that establishes its ownership of the CHAMBONG trademark, with priority back to November 2014. ...
2017-08-18 - Datos del caso
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the complainant prove each of the following three elements to obtain a decision that a domain name should be either cancelled or transferred:
(i) the 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 with respect to the domain name; and
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...International Electronic Communications Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's TITLETOWN mark, in which the Complainant has demonstrated rights through registration and use. ...
2017-11-06 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed Complainant must satisfy the Panel that:
(i) the disputed 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 disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy in establishing its rights in Complainant’s SAQUON BARKLEY mark and in showing that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the complainant must make at least a prima facie showing that the respondent possesses no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. ...
2019-04-10 - Datos del caso
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the complainant prove each of the following three elements to obtain a decision that a domain name should be either cancelled or transferred:
(i) the 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 with respect to the domain name; and
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...International Electronic Communications Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s MONSTER ENERGY mark, a well-known mark in which the Complainant has demonstrated rights through extensive registration and use. ...
2019-02-15 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant can only succeed in an administrative proceeding under the Policy if the following circumstances are met:
(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 the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...For all the above, the Panel decides that English is the language of the proceeding.
6.2. Substantive Matters:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant holds rights in the BNP PARIBAS trademark.
The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark BNP PARIBAS in its entirety, with no addition or misspelling.
...
2019-02-08 - Datos del caso
What the Complainant must prove
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant has the burden of proving the following:
(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(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.
...Under paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the panel may draw such inferences from a respondent's failure to comply with the Rules (e.g., by failing to file a response), as the panel considers appropriate.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has proved this part of its Complaint. It is the registered proprietor of the word mark GUN DIGEST in the United States, and the Domain Name is identical to that mark (the “.com” suffix is not taken into account in the comparison which paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires).
...
2008-11-12 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to divest a Respondent of a disputed domain name, a Complainant must demonstrate each of the following:
(i) the 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 Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...In the circumstances of this proceeding, the Panel finds no compelling reason for suspending the UDRP administrative proceeding and therefore denies the Respondent’s request.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant holds a registered trademark for KOOKS, which is identical to the Domain Name for Policy purposes.
...
2008-04-11 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy places on the Complainant the onus of proving that:
(i) the domain name in dispute 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 said domain name; and
(iii) the said domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark BENETTON through its large portfolio of trademark registrations.
...
2007-02-27 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that
(i) The 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 Domain Name; and
(iii) The Domain Name has been registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is not in dispute that the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark and the Panel so finds.
...
2006-01-30 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
6.1 The Policy paragraph 4(a) provides that the Complainant must prove each of the following in order to succeed in an administrative proceeding:
— that the Respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
— that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
— that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
6.2 As stated above, the Policy paragraph 4(c) sets out circumstances which, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved shall demonstrate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interest in the domain name in issue.
6.3 The Policy paragraph 4(b) sets out circumstances which, again in particular but without limitation, if found the Panel to be present shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.
6.4 Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.4.1 As to proof of the Complainant's rights in the MOTHERHOOD and MATERNITY. ...
2007-06-08 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
In order to qualify for a remedy, the Complainants must prove each of the three elements set out in Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, as approved by ICANN on October 24, 1999 ("ICANN Policy"), namely:
(a) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(b) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(c) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Accordingly, the panel will treat Marlyn as the Complainant in this dispute.
6.1 Identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark
The panel finds that Mucos is the owner of the trademark WOBENZYM.
...
2001-04-24 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
The Proceeding - Three Elements
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the domain name holder is to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that a third party complainant asserts to an ICANN approved dispute resolution service provider that:
(i) the domain name holder’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights ("Element (i)"); and
(ii) the domain name holder has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name ("Element (ii)"); and
(iii) the domain name of the domain name holder has been registered and is being used in bad faith ("Element (iii)").
The Panelist, however, can only rule in a complainant’s favor after the complainant has proven that the above-listed elements are present.
Element (i) - Domain Name Identical or Confusingly Similar to the Mark
The Complainant has presented evidence to show that it is the owner of the mark CLAIROL registered with the U.S. ...
2001-05-10 - Datos del caso
In relation to element (i) of paragraph 4(a) of the Uniform Policy, the Complainants contend that the domain name in issue is either identical or confusingly similar to the trademark AUSTRALIAN STOCK EXCHANGE.
5.3. In relation to element (ii) of paragraph 4(a) of the Uniform Policy, the Complaints contend that they have not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the AUSTRALIAN STOCK EXCHANGE trademark, nor have they licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to apply for or use any domain name incorporating that trademark. ...Discussion and Findings
Domain Name Identical or Confusingly Similar to Complainants’ Mark
6.1. The initial question to resolve is whether the Complainants have rights in a trademark or service mark to which the Uniform Policy applies. ...
2000-12-01 - Datos del caso
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) that the Domain Name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service in which the Complainant has rights; and,
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and,
(iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
6.3. Domain name identical or confusingly similar
It is evident that the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name are identical, they use identical words and with identical sound. ...
2002-12-30 - Datos del caso
Parties’ Contentions
A) The Complainant
Complainant contends that all the domain names at issue use the word "Polar" and are identical or confusingly similar to Complainants’ trademarks, trade names, and registered domain names. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names at issue. ...Decision
The Panel has found that the domain names at issue are confusingly similar to Complainant´s trademark, that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in said domain names, and that the domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
...
2001-03-09 - Datos del caso
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) that the Domain Name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service in which the Complainant has rights; and,
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and,
(iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
6.1. Domain name identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant has provided evidence of ownership of trademark application for CONTRAROTATOR in United Kingdom and as Community Trademark.
...
2001-02-27 - Datos del caso
The Complainant’s contentions in the Complaint
5.1 Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove that:
(i) [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
(ii) [the Respondent has] no right or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) [the] domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
5.2 The Complainant makes the following submissions in respect of each of the elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
5.3 In reference to the element in paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complaint asserts that the Respondent is using an identical name to the Complainant’s trading name in use since 1992. ...The Panel concludes that the Complainant has trademark rights at common law in the term "ARELS".
6.2 The Panel turns next to the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, which the Complainant must prove in order to obtain relief.
6.3 Domain names identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.
The domain name in dispute is "arels.com". The Complainant’s common law trademark is in the letters "ARELS". ...
2001-03-15 - Datos del caso