I don’t know what else I can do.”
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established trademark rights. The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. ...
2019-10-10 - 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 French trade mark registration number 96613649 registered on February 29, 1996. ...
2018-11-16 - Datos del caso
Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name, , is, for Policy purposes, identical to the KOHL’S trademark. ...
2019-01-02 - Datos del caso
The Panel accepts the Complaint as filed in English and the Respondent’s email communications as submitted in German, and will proceed in its discretion to render its decision in English.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has shown that it has rights in the AXA trademark, which is reproduced in its entirety in the disputed domain name.
...
2018-12-26 - Datos del caso
Complainant
Summarizing its legal contentions, Complainant alleges that (1) the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks, (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and (3) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, all in violation of the Policy. 2 Complainant also avers that it sent Respondent a cease and desist letter on April 1, 2019 (annexed to the Complaint).
...
2019-08-13 - Datos del caso
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name consists of the Complainant’s CLAYTON UTZ mark (registered in Australia since 2010 for, inter alia, legal services) and the ccTLD “.co”. ...
2019-06-11 - Datos del caso
Respondent
Respondent claims it registered the domain name before
Complainant established rights in his name, and that it did so for the bona
fide purpose of using the name as a brand name for a cheese product for one
of its clients.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has provided evidence to demonstrate common law trademark rights in the name LEWIS BLACK in connection with entertainment services that predate registration of the domain name. ...
2007-01-09 - 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 concludes that the disputed domain names, and are, for all intents and purposes, identical to the mark iXCM. ...
2009-08-06 - Datos del caso
The disputed domain name is, according the Respondent,
used to praise LEGO.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name at issue is not identical to a trademark held by the Complainant, and the question is therefore whether there is confusing similarity.
...
2006-05-05 - Datos del caso
Complainant
The Complainant asserts trademark rights and states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks.
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...
2009-05-26 - Datos del caso
As “lego” is the dominant feature of each of the disputed domain names, each is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant holds rights.
Respondent holds no registered or other trademarks or trade names that incorporate the word “lego”. ...
2009-12-10 - Datos del caso
D2000-0009 (February 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The contested domain name is identical to the Complainant's mark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
According to 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from the Respondent's default as it considers appropriate.
...
2009-10-27 - Datos del caso
Finally, the Respondent allegedly plans to build a website using the disputed domain name to "take prevention and avoidance in light of relevant regulations and laws to cause any bad influences to other institutions and individuals" [sic].
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s registered trademark BARRYS TICKETS except for the country code suffix “.co”. ...
2010-10-15 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
Complainant has carried its burden of proof under each of the necessary requirements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated rights in its nationally- (and EU community wide-) registered trademarks for MAGICAD, and the disputed domain name is identical except for the generic top-level domain indicator (“.com”), which is disregarded in determining identity or confusing similarity.
...
2010-09-28 - Datos del caso
Accordingly, “actual notice” has occurred and by the express terms of the second sentence of paragraph 2(a) the Center has discharged its duty, Respondent has received due notice of this proceeding, and the Panel has jurisdiction to decide this administrative proceeding.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar; Rights or Legitimate Interests; and Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Before turning to the three requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, as a procedural matter the Panel notes that Respondent's default does not constitute an admission of any pleaded matter or result in the Policy equivalent of a default judgment. ...
2010-05-03 - Datos del caso
Applies to this case, Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that Complainant must prove each of the following:
a) that the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark in which in which Complainant has rights, and
b) that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, and
c) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2000-10-12 - Datos del caso
First, there is no question that the domain name in dispute is identical or confusingly similar to the MILBANK TWEED mark. The inclusion of the generic top-level domain name ".com" in Respondent's domain name is without legal significance.
...
2001-09-20 - Datos del caso
B.Respondent
The Respondent has not
responded.
6.Discussion and Findings
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 trade mark or service mark in which
the Complainant has rights; and
(ii)The Respondent
has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii)The Domain Name
has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2001-07-05 - Datos del caso
The first of these requirements is that the Respondent's domain name in issue is identical with or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. The Policy was introduced to deal, not with those who register, acquire, use or deal in attractive domain names in general, but with those who include in a domain name a trademark with the result that some potential uses of the domain could realistically lead to confusion with that mark. ...
2001-08-09 - Datos del caso
Discussions and Findings
Section 4(a) of the Policy entitles a complainant, such as Chevy Chase Bank, to seek an administrative transfer of a second level Internet domain name in the event that it "proves," to the satisfaction of the Panel, three predicates: (1) an accused domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark in which the complainant has rights; (2) a registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the accused domain name; and (3) a registrant’s domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2001-05-14 - Datos del caso