Parties' Contentions
5. 1 Complainant contends that:
a) The domain name "unionfenosa.net" is identical, and therefore confusingly similar to the trademark Unión Fenosa and to the corporate trade name and that therefore it may cause damages to the Complainant’s goodwill.
...
2000-10-10 - Datos del caso
General Principles
Under paragraph 4 (a) of the Policy, the Panel should be satisfied that:
(i) the 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 domain name;
(iii) the domain name has been registered in bad faith;
(iv) the domain name is being used in bad faith.
...
2003-01-13 - Datos del caso
In order to prevail, therefore, the Complainant must prove the following:
(i) The 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 domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2002-12-11 - Datos del caso
There is no explanation on behalf of the defendant concerning the choice of
their domain name."
6.Discussion and Findings
The burden for the Complainant
under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is to prove:
(i)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
(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.
...
2001-07-09 - Datos del caso
The disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant’s trade mark and is confusingly similar to it. The addition of a generic term does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the trade mark, particularly where the generic term refers to a service covered by the Complainant’s registered trade marks. ...The Panel would add, however, that the disallowed material in the supplemental filing would have made no difference to the outcome of this case.
B. 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.
...
2014-10-02 - Datos del caso
The Complainant is not commonly known by the name “foodcube”, and the Complainant's business is confusingly similar to that operated by the proprietor of the website at “www.foodcube.com.au.”
7. The Complainant's business is not related to food delivery, but is concerned with computer system design services, and custom computer programming services.
8. ...Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules requires the panel to:
“…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”.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Because of the view to which the Panel has come on the issue of bad faith registration (Section 6E of this Decision), the Complaint must fail. ...
2009-09-22 - Datos del caso
Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trade marks SHIELD and NVIDIA SHIELD in which it has rights. The Complainant’s SHIELD mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. ...The Panel therefore finds it apt to rule that English should be the language of the proceeding.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established it has rights to the trade mark SHIELD. Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy only requires that the Complainant show it has rights in the trade mark or service mark, not necessarily in the jurisdiction where the Respondent is based or located. ...
2015-03-20 - Datos del caso
Substantive Issues
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Complainant must prove each of the three following elements:
i. the Disputed Domain Name is identical to 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 the Disputed Domain Name;
iii. the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has submitted detailed evidence that it is the owner of numerous trademarks consisting of the words “Music Maker”. ...
2015-10-09 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed in this administrative proceeding, the Complainant must prove that:
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 was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...In considering these elements, paragraph 15(a) of the Rules provides that the Panel shall decide the Complaint on the basis of statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any other rules or principles of law that the Panel deems applicable.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
As explained in paragraph 1.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), the test for confusing similarity under the UDRP involves a straightforward visual or aural comparison between the trademark at issue and the domain name itself to determine likelihood of Internet user confusion. ...
2015-10-05 - Datos del caso
Substantive Matters
In order to prevail in its Complaint, the Complainant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that it has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy:
(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 the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights in its registered SCOPUS trademark, the details of which are provided in the factual-background section above. ...
2020-07-02 - 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.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights over the trademark LERINS based on the trademark registration cited under section 4 above, the related trademark certificate submitted as annex 3 to the Complaint and the transfer agreement along with the request for recordal of assignment of the trademark submitted as annex 16 to the Complaint.
...
2021-08-23 - 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.
6.1. ...Accordingly, the Panel proceeded to issue the Decision.
6.2. Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is not clear whether the Complainant relies on a claim to registered or unregistered rights. ...
2022-02-11 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
Under the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove on the balance of probabilities that:
(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 the Disputed Domain Name; and
(iii) the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...The Panel notes that nothing turns on the matters raised in the Supplemental Filing and it need not be
admitted to reach a conclusion.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the f irst element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2025-08-29 - Datos del caso
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 5
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-11-04 - Datos del caso
Considering also the procedural fairness, the
Panel has exceptionally taken all these submissions into account as part of the record.
6.2. Substantial Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-04-16 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the
Policy have been satisfied, namely:
page 4
(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 and is being used in bad faith.
...In any event, if the Complainant’s supplemental submission was not accepted, the Panel would have
reached the same result as set out below.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-08-05 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to divest the Respondent of the disputed domain name,
the Complainant must demonstrate 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; 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.
1 For ease of reference, the Panel will use “the Respondent” to refer to Ms. ...page 4
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules directs the Panel to decide the 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
Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark
or service mark for the purposes of the Policy, being the two registered trademarks identified in section 4
above. ...
2023-08-18 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Finding
The Complainant is required by paragraph 4(a) of the Policy to establish:
(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 by the Respondent.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s registered trademarks. The Complainant therefore succeeds under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2008-02-13 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to 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 and is being used in bad faith.
...While often these are helpful, they are neither controlling nor binding on this Administrative Panel.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is common-ground that the subject domain names are identical to the marks of the Complainant, but the Respondent asserts that the registrations of the marks are vulnerable because the marks are generic.
...
2006-08-16 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
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 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 with respect to 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 finds that the Complainant has established its rights in the ATLANTIC trademark, by virtue of the Trademarks.
...
2007-10-18 - Datos del caso