Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar.
Complainant has provided undisputed evidence of its registered trademarks for PETROBRAS. As the disputed domain names incorporate that word as their principal component, both are confusing similar.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests.
Complainant has made the required prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. ...
2011-09-22 - Datos del caso
At the very top of Respondent’s homepage are links to similar “24/7 coverage” of news related to a variety of topics (science, photography) and other game products including, Nintendo DS, Playstation 3, Wii and XBOX 360.
5. ...Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that a Complainant prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(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 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.
...
2007-06-25 - Datos del caso
None of the attorneys in the bankruptcy proceeding, including the attorney for Complainant, has objected in that proceeding to Respondent’s registration or ownership of the disputed domain names.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar.
Complainant has established ownership of RICH HARVEST FARMS and RICH HARVEST LINKS and has used the Rich Harvest phrase for his golf course since 1999. ...The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
For similar reasons the Panel finds that Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain names in bad faith, as that term has been consistently interpreted under the Policy. ...
2007-11-06 - Datos del caso
The disputed domain names are quasi identical or at least similar to the Complainant’s marks, given that “store” and “shop” are two descriptive elements and FEIYUE is the only distinctive element of each disputed domain name.
...Since the documentation attesting to the bad faith of the Complainant is currently held by others, it has not been possible to obtain it within the given term.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
As set out in numerous decisions issued by the Center, the simple inclusion of a third party mark in a disputed domain name is sufficient to give rise to confusion and lead to the conclusion that the first of the UDRP’s requirements is met.
...
2011-10-21 - Datos del caso
Identica sau suficient de similară încât să produca confuzie
Completul administrativ trebuie să stabiliească dacă Reclamantul deţine drepturi asupra unei mărci şi dacă numele de domeniu în litigiu este identic sau similar astfel încât să produca confuzie cu respectiva marcă.
În acest caz Reclamantul a dovedit că deţine dreptul asupra mărcii "Infinity" înregistrată la nivel naţional sub numărul 890063 pentru servicii în clasele 35 şi 39. ...If someone else has already registered a domain name identical or confusingly similar to the proposed new mark, the domain name will be unavailable to the business unless it negotiates a transfer" ( e-Duction, Inc v John Zuccarini, d/b/a The Cupcake Party & Cupcake Movies,
Cazul OMPI nr. ...
2011-04-06 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
The Panel will now proceed to consider whether or not the three requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP have been met.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
First of all the Panel should clarify that in relation to this first requirement the fact that the trademark application in which the Complainant claims to have rights was filed after the date of registration of the domain name is not relevant, since the Policy simply requires that the domain name be identical or similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights at the time of the filing of the Complaint.
...
2010-07-09 - Datos del caso
Complainant contends that it and its predecessor began using the trademark shutterbug in 1972; that Respondent admits knowledge of Complainant's trademark and magazine when it acquired the Domain Name; that the relevant portion of the Domain Name is identical to Complainant's registered trademark shutterbug; that respondent does not own a trademark or service mark registration that is identical, similar, or in any way related to Complainant's Mark and the Domain Name; that shutterbug is not Respondent's personal name and Respondent is not engaged in any business or commerce under the name shutterbug; that Respondent has never used the Domain Name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services; that Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant and has never been authorized to use its Mark; that accordingly Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the Domain Name; and that Respondent is warehousing the Domain Name in bad faith.
...These elements are as follows:
(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 to the Domain Name; and
(iii) Respondent's Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2000-08-25 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
6.1 Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles the
Panel is to use in determining the dispute: "A Panel shall decide a complaint
on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the
Policy, these Rules, and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
6.2 Since both the Complainant and Respondent are domiciled in the United States,
and since United States’ courts have recent experience with similar disputes,
to the extent that it would assist the Panel in determining whether the Complainant
has met its burden as established by Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Panel
shall look to rules and principles of law set out in decisions of the courts
of the United States.
6.3 Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each
of the following:
1) 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,
2) that the Respondent has no legitimate interests in respect of the domain
name; and,
3) the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
6.4 It is clear that the domain name at issue is identical
to the service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
6.5 Respondent contends that he intends to use in conjunction
with his business, but he has been unable to because NSI has put the name on
hold. ...
2000-06-06 - Datos del caso
Discussions and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following:
1. that the Domain Name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights; and
2. that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
3. that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith...It is therefore not necessary to determine whether the word-device-marks of the Complainant (which include the word granini) are also to be regarded as identical or similar to the Domain Name.
(2) Rights or Legitimate Interests of Respondent in Domain Name
According to Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii) the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests of Respondent:
(i) Respondent’s Use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, before any notice to Respondent of the dispute; or
(ii) Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has no trademark or service marks rights; or
(iii) Respondent is making a legitimate non commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
...
2000-11-14 - Datos del caso
The Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has never been commonly known by the name “MENOSTAR” or by any name remotely similar to “MENOSTAR”. The Respondent is not, and has never been, representative or licensee of the Complainant, nor is the Respondent otherwise authorized to use the Complainant’s trademarks.
...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s
contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the domain name at issue is identical to Complainant’s registered trademarks MENOSTAR.
...
2005-03-01 - Datos del caso
Those requirements are that:
(i) Respondent's domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the 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.
...iii) above, in support of bad faith registration and use of the domain name at stake: in using the domain name for promoting the sale of its goods and services, the Respondent creates the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark "LOCMA" as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of such web site, especially since the parties to this administrative proceeding have similar activities. Bad faith behavior of the Respondent is also enhanced by the fact, as submitted by the Complainant, that all hyperlinks of the home page of the web site redirect the Internet user to the Respondent's Belgium web site, namely the spelling of which would appear more in line with its name (see Complaint Annex 11).
...
2001-10-12 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
6.1 Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles the Panel is to use in determining the dispute: "A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules, and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
6.2 Since both the Complainant and Respondent are domiciled in the United States, and since United States’ courts have recent experience with similar disputes, to the extent that it would assist the Panel in determining whether the Complainant has met its burden as established by Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Panel shall look to rules and principles of law set out in decisions of the courts of the United States.
6.3 Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following:
1) 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,
2) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and,
3) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
6.4 The domain name at issue is identical to the trademark
in which the Complainant has rights. ...
2001-10-12 - Datos del caso
At the time the Complainant filed the Complaint the Respondent was apparently
making use of the Domain Name "cyrillus.net" and according to the Complainant
was offering, via a webpage related to this Domain Name, clothing products similar
to those of the Complainant.
However, the websites linked to the Domain Names currently resolve to inactive
pages.
5. ...Applied to this case, Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant
must prove each of the following:
(1) that the Domain Name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly
similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights; and,
(2) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of
the Domain Name; and,
(3) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2001-07-18 - Datos del caso
Since both the Complainant and Respondent are domiciled in the United States, and since United States’ courts have recent experience with similar disputes, to the extent that it would assist the Panel in determining whether the Complainant has met its burden as established by Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Panel shall look to rules and principles of law set out in decisions of the courts of the United States.
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following:
1) 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,
2) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and,
3) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2001-08-15 - Datos del caso
Conclusions and findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy lists three tests which a complainant must satisfy in order to succeed:
(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.
...There are no equivalent "acquiescence" provisions in the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. A similar issue was raised in case D2000-1838, Celine Dion and Sony Music Entertainment (Canada) Inc. v Jeff Burger. ...
2001-04-05 - Datos del caso
He has never offered to sell the Domain Names to Complainant, and his posted offer to sell would have been accepted only to a "better prepared" person with a similar desire to create a fan-based site, and only for reimbursement of his costs of registration. Complainant has not carried its burden of proof on any of the necessary elements of its claim.
6. ...Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of
the following:
(1) that the Domain Name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service in which the Complainant has rights;
(2) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the Domain Name; and
(3) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2001-05-08 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
Para. 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each of the following:
The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trade mark;
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and,
The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Para. 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances that, if proved, constitute evidence of a right or legitimate interest as described in para. 4(a)(ii) referred to above.
Domain Name Identical or Similar
The domain name registered by the Respondent and in dispute is identical to the trade mark used and registered by the Complainant.
...
2001-03-12 - Datos del caso
The burden for the Complainant, under paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN Policy, is to show:
- That the domain names registered by the Respondent are 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 names; and
- That the domain name have been registered and are being used by the Respondent in bad faith.
...Cao Shan Hui (Case No. D2000-0066).
The present situation is similar to that in Educational Tertiary Service v. TOEFL (WIPO Case D2000-0044) where the learned Panelist said:
"The value which Respondent seeks to secure from sale of the domain name is based on the underlying value of Complainant’s trademark. ...
2000-09-22 - Datos del caso
En particular, la Demandante sostiene que su marca es idéntica, o cuando menos, similar en grado muy alto
a los nombres de dominio en disputa.
Niega haber dado autorización expresa o tácita para el registro y uso de los nombres de dominio en disputa.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks
CASTILLO DE LOARRE registered within the European Union; the Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and, the disputed domain name was registered as well as
used in bad faith.
1 (i) El Registro ejecutará la decisión dentro de los treinta (30) días siguientes a su notificación a las Partes, a menos que la
Demandada inicie procedimientos en un tribunal de jurisdicción mutua según lo establecido en el párrafo A(1) del Reglamento ADR.
...
2025-05-02 - Datos del caso
The Complainant says that it is therefore inconceivable that the Registrant is not aware of the Complainant's reputation in the island of Ireland.
The names Daft and Daftmotors are confusingly similar. The disputed domain name differs from the protected identifier only by the addition of the generic word “motors”. ...The Panel views paragraph 1.4 of the Policy as requiring the Complainant to support its assertions with actual evidence in order to prove that each of the conditions specified in paragraph 1.1 of the Policy are met.
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.
...
2010-01-26 - Datos del caso