The burden for the Complainant, under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, is to show:
- 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;
- that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
- that the domain name has been registered in bad faith.
...See also VZ Vermögens Zentrum SA v Anything.com, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0527 to similar effect.)
The name 186kL was chosen after a branding consultant had recommended it. 186K refers to the speed of light, 186k miles per second. ...
2002-07-17 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Respondent is required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that the Complainant asserts to the applicable Provider, in compliance with the Rules of Procedure, that:
“(i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.”
...Any regard that may be had to the present decision under the Policy in the course of the District Court proceedings would quite properly be a matter for the court itself to determine.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has produced satisfactory evidence of its rights in the trademark FLYBOARD. ...
2013-01-25 - Datos del caso
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.
...The Panel likewise considered the Response to the Supplemental Filing filed by Respondent.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name is identical to Complainant’s BOISE GARAGE DOOR mark for purposes of the Policy, since the .com suffix is ignored for purposes of this analysis. ...
2012-10-17 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
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; and
(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 unanimously concludes, as did the Panel in the Prior Case, that the Domain Name is identical to the CARACOL trademark in which Complainant holds rights.
...
2016-01-27 - Datos del caso
Nevertheless, the Panel will consider the role of Jonathan Glowacki in its analysis in Section 6.2C below.
6.2 Substantive Issues
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that a complainant must prove each of the following elements:
(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.
...Failure to prove any one element will result in rejection of the Complaint.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the DYNAMERSE mark. ...
2021-12-17 - Datos del caso
Substantive Issues
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that a complainant must prove the following elements:
(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 to a Trademark or Service Mark in which the Complainant has
Rights; Bad Faith
The first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy functions as a standing requirement. ...
2022-06-02 - Datos del caso
Substantive issues
Pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a), the Complainant must prove each of the following to justify the
transfer of the disputed domain names:
(i) each of the disputed domain names is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in
which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and
(iii) the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
By the Rules, paragraph 5(c)(i), it is expected of a respondent to: “[r]espond specifically to the statements
and allegations contained in the complaint and include any and all bases for the Respondent (domain name
holder) to retain registration and use of the disputed domain name […].”
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has filed evidence that it holds rights in the NEONAV trademark.1
The Panel notes that a common practice has emerged under the Policy to disregard in appropriate
circumstances the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) section of domain names for the purposes of the
comparison under the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). ...
2023-02-14 - Datos del caso
General
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.
...The Panel observes that a registrar's failure to provide the requested registrar verification in the context of a UDRP case (noting, e.g., paragraph 4 of the Rules) may raise questions as to its motivation.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
While noting the Respondent's position on this (see Section 5B above), the Domain Name features, as the Respondent acknowledges, an identical representation of the Complainant's CHATROULETTE trade mark at the second level. ...
2018-07-16 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Respondent is required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that the Complainant asserts to the applicable dispute-resolution provider, in compliance with the Rules, that:
“(i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith”.
...The Panel has taken into consideration all of the evidence, annexed material and submissions provided by the parties.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Respondent has conceded that the disputed domain name is effectively identical to the Complainant’s trademark CLH, and the Panel so finds under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2018-06-21 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
To qualify for cancellation or transfer of a domain name, a complainant must prove each element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, namely:
(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 domain name; and
(ii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is common ground that the Complainant has rights in the Spanish registered trademark CLARA in respect of magazines and other publications. ...
2010-03-11 - 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 provided evidence of ownership of trademark and service mark registrations for the mark SBB at the Swiss Trademark Office. ...
2010-01-14 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant has the burden of proving 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 Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) The Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith.
Failure to prove any one of these factors is fatal to the Complaint.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated its rights in the trademark INTELLOGY by virtue of its federal registration (Complaint Annex 5), which is valid and subsisting given the USPTO's acceptance of Complainant's 2007 Section 8 and Section 15 Declaration (Complaint Annex 7). ...
2009-12-09 - Datos del caso
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to divest the Respondent of the Domain Names, the Complainant must demonstrate each of the following:
(i) the Domain Names are 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 Domain Names; and
(iii) the Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
...Relevant portions of the parties’ submissions in response to this order are discussed below.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name is undeniably identical to the Complainant’s name – or rather the version of the name he has used professionally since at least 1981, which does not include his original family name, Bass. ...
2006-01-11 - Datos del caso
The three domain names are, while not identical, at least confusingly similar to Complainants´ marks MOVICOM and BELLSOUTH, respectively. The fact that in two of the domain names at issue a hyphen is used is irrelevant. ...The registration of domain names identical or confusingly similar to the marks of two well known companies doing business in Argentina by a registrant that has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names, and who prefers not to submit any allegation in this proceeding, points by itself to bad faith registration. ...
2000-10-11 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
To qualify for cancellation or transfer, a complainant must prove each element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, namely:
(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 domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...It follows that the domain name and the mark are confusingly similar. Having regard to the different fields of activity in which the parties are engaged, it does not follow that there would be confusion in fact.
...
2000-08-24 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
To qualify for cancellation or transfer, a complainant must prove each element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, namely:
(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 domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...The Panel there held that the name
was not confusingly similar to the mark "natwest".
This case is different. There is no word on the domain name which would indicate that this is a site established to receive grievances about the Complainant. ...
2001-08-29 - Datos del caso
We will offer to consent to an agreement stating that our company will not provide goods or services at BENDON.COM that are similar to those protected by your client’s trademark. If this would resolve your concerns, please let me know, and I will ask our legal counsel draft a proposed agreement.”
...Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.6 The Complainant clearly has trademark rights in the BENDON mark. It is not a generic term as proposed in the US Court Complaint. ...
2005-01-19 - Datos del caso
Substantive Issues
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant must 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;
(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.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The relevant part of the Disputed Domain name is "svenskaspel", which
is identical to the Complainant’s trademark No 357 397 SVENSKA SPEL, registered
in Sweden August 23, 2002 (application filed July 18, 2000).
...
2003-10-03 - Datos del caso
Demandante
En su Demanda, la Demandante sostiene lo siguiente:
El nombre de dominio en disputa es idéntico o similar hasta el punto de crear confusión con una marca sobre la que la Demandante tiene derechos. El nombre de domino en disputa incluye la denominación "Fichet" a la que solamente se adjunta el identificador geográfico "Barcelona", no siendo este identificador el elemento dominante y distintivo. ...Roberto Bianchi
Experto Único
Fecha: 30 de junio de 2015
1 WIPO Overview, paragraph 1.9 "Is a domain name consisting of a trademark and a generic, descriptive or geographical term confusingly similar to a complainant's trademark? […] The addition of merely generic, descriptive, or geographical wording to a trademark in a domain name would normally be insufficient in itself to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the UDRP. ...
2015-07-10 - Datos del caso
De este modo, la Demandante entiende que el Nombre de Dominio es confusamente similar con las marcas
de las que es titular.
- Que no ha autorizado a la Demandada en modo alguno a hacer uso de sus marcas ni al registro del
Nombre de Dominio. ...Derechos o intereses legítimos
A fin de evaluar la eventual concurrencia del segundo de los elementos requeridos por la Política, el Experto
considera particularmente relevante tener en cuenta la siguiente circunstancia: la Demandada registró el
Nombre de Dominio para, casi inmediatamente, vincularlo a un uso evidentemente fraudulento (el envío de
correos electrónicos suplantando la identidad de empleados de la Demandante, a fin de engañar a algunos
de sus clientes y conseguir fraudulentamente pagos).
1 Traducción no oficial del texto original inglés: “Intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar
to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element. This stems from the fact that the domain name contains sufficiently recognizable
aspects of the relevant mark”.
...
2022-12-05 - Datos del caso