It affirms that the Respondent did not file or register any trademark
identical or similar to the Domain Name and that the website related to the
Domain Name is a fake portal site.
The Complainant contends
that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name in bad faith. ...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.
...
2001-12-11 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
The factual foundation of the Complainant’s contentions, as presented by the Complainant, while supporting its non contradicted request for transfer of the disputed domain names by written evidence and ample reference to earlier UDRP case decisions, leads the Panel to the following conclusions.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain names both contain the Complainant’s entire trademark PHOTOBUCKET. ...
2012-03-13 - Datos del caso
Respondent
The Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant’s contentions, but its submitted comments to the Center on April 15 and 16, 2012 which do not affect the Panel’s substantive determination in this Decision.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To the Panel, the identity between the NAJETI Trademarks and the Domain Name is perfect under the Policy, as it is well established that the extension “.org” must not be taken into consideration.
...
2012-07-09 - Datos del caso
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has registered and unregistered trade mark rights in the mark FRORIEP RENGGLI. ...
2013-06-18 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
Despite the Respondent’s failure to file a Response or to respond in any other way to the Complaint, the Complainant bears the onus of proving that each of the three limbs of the Policy has been made out.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel agrees with the Complainant’s submission that in this case there is no reason to treat the suffix “.co" as having any substantive effect and, accordingly, the Panel comfortably concludes that the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s DEEZER trademark.
...
2013-06-14 - Datos del caso
Complainant
The Complainant contended that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its registered trademark JACOB & CO; and that the Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as there is no relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent nor has the Complainant given any authorization to the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademark; and that the disputed domain name had been registered and used in bad faith.
...
2013-05-14 - Datos del caso
Therefore, the Panel will review the Complaint on this basis.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has provided evidence that it is the owner of three Community trademarks for MOROCCANOIL. ...
2012-10-15 - Datos del caso
The reasons mentioned by the Complainant are sufficient in the Panel’s view to deviate from the general rule under paragraph 11 of the Rules (that the language of the administrative proceedings shall be the language of the Registration Agreement) and issue this decision in English.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s VOLKSWAGEN trademark in its entirety. ...
2015-11-24 - Datos del caso
The Panel gives the following reasons for its decision.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant proves that it has rights in the trademark CLARINS based on different trademark registrations in the world. ...
2014-02-11 - Datos del caso
According to Respondent it has not received any official statement regarding the termination of the relationship with the Complainant and Respondent is holding the Domain Name to support the commercial communication of the products sold under the Trademarks.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel agrees with the Complainants that the Trademarks and the Domain Name are identical.
...
2014-02-07 - Datos del caso
The Panel agrees fully with the Complainant’s arguments and accordingly does not consider it necessary to write a long decision.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain names are made up of the Complainant’s registered Trade Mark人头马, and the gTLDs “.公司” and “.网络”. ...
2014-12-19 - Datos del caso
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the mark F5 by virtue of its registered trade mark for that term.
...
2016-02-29 - Datos del caso
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it owns a registered trade mark in the United States for DESKO under trade mark registration number 2315195. ...
2015-06-29 - Datos del caso
Under these circumstances, the Panel finds it proper and fair to render this decision in English.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated with supporting evidence that it holds a trademark registration in the US for IPROTEC (Registration No. 4,846,392), which is identical to the disputed domain name.
...
2016-04-14 - Datos del caso
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights in the trademark BLOCKET. The Domain Name is identical to the trademark. ...
2021-04-06 - Datos del caso
It then argues that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the GEICO mark insofar as it incorporates the GEICO mark, adding only the letter “h” and the generic top-level domain “.com.”
...
2021-12-20 - Datos del caso
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant owns trademark registrations for the trademark VALDOXAN. The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established its ownership of the trademark VALDOXAN.
...
2020-12-21 - Datos del caso
Given the fact that both parties were given the opportunity to submit arguments in the language of their preference, and the Respondent neither raised an objection as to the language of proceeding nor submitted any arguments whatsoever in these proceedings, the Panel finds it proper and fair to render this decision in English.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated with supporting evidence that it holds trademark registrations for LEGO in numerous jurisdictions around the world which date back to as early as 1954. ...
2021-10-08 - Datos del caso
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark EQUINOR.
The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. ...
2020-01-29 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
Based on the facts and evidence introduced by the Complainant, and with regard to paragraphs 4(a), (b) and (c) of the Policy, the Panel concludes as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has submitted evidence to demonstrate its registered rights in the REGENERON trademark.
...
2021-11-24 - Datos del caso