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 a third party (a “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.”
...The dispute is properly within the scope of the Policy and the Panel has jurisdiction to decide the dispute.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has produced documentary evidence of its registered trademark IPIRANGA in Brazil and certain South American Countries. ...
2011-05-16 - Datos del caso
The Complaint alleges that the "steinlager.com" domain name is identical to the STEINLAGER word mark and confusingly similar to the STEINLAGER label mark.
Lion relies inter alia on the following matters as evidence that Mr. ...Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4.a of the Policy directs that Lion must prove each of the following:-
(i) The domain name in issue is identical or confusingly similar to one of Lion’s trade marks or service marks, and
Mr. Waugh 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.
...
2000-04-05 - Datos del caso
The Panel will now consider in detail each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a):
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.
When the Complaint was filed, the Complainant did not have a trade mark registration or application for GALLERINA in any jurisdiction. ...However in addition the Panel finds that the whole of the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark.
In conclusion, the Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) has been proved.
...
2000-08-16 - Datos del caso
Complainant goes on to allege, upon "information and belief" that the disputed domain names "are intended to refer to CARTASI, and are confusingly similar".
The Complaint contends that it had prior common law rights in the trademark CARTASI. ...Discussion and Findings
The Complainant must prove that:
(i) the Respondent's 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 Respondent's domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2001-10-05 - Datos del caso
Adelphia avers that the four domain names in issue are "in some cases
identical to, and in every instance confusingly similar to, the Adelphia Marks,"
citing Twentieth Century Fox v. David Risser, FA 0002 000093761.
...a) of the Policy directs that Adelphia must prove, with respect
to each domain name in issue, each of the following:
(i) The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to an Adelphia trademark
in issue here, and
(ii) Respondents have 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.
...
2001-01-25 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
6.1 The Policy paragraph 4a provides that the Complainant must prove each of the following:
· that the Respondent's domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
· the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
· the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith.
6.2 Paragraph 4b of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances that, if proved, shall be evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.
6.3 Paragraph 4c of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances, which, if proved, shall demonstrate a Respondent's rights or legitimate interests to the domain name in issue.
6.4 Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.4.1 The Complainant contends that its trademark SUNMAXX and the domain name in issue are identical. ...
2001-05-11 - Datos del caso
TMA843311 filed on the same date for the same words covering a similar range of goods and services to those specified by the US trade mark. The Complainant also owns Canadian and US trade marks Nos. ...While a panel may appropriate inferences from a respondent's default (e.g., to regard factual allegations which are not inherently implausible as being true), the complainant must still support its assertions with actual evidence in order to succeed in a UDRP proceeding.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the mark NETWORK OF GIVING by virtue of its registered trade marks for that term. ...
2015-12-01 - Datos del caso
As regards common control, the Panel notes that:
- the disputed domain name registrants have similar names as “Meta Support” or “Support Meta”.
- the Domain Names were registered with the same Registrar...Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different disputed domain
name registrants (referred to below as “the Respondent”) in a single proceeding.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2025-10-02 - Datos del caso
There is no indication in the record that the Respondents are displaying similar content. While the Panel accepts that the fact that the disputed domain names are registered the same day as the Complainant’s trademark applications were published, it is not sufficient in itself, or in conjunction with the other factors relied on by the Complainant, to establish that the disputed domain names are under common control.
...The Panel proceeds to rule on the disputed domain names , , and (the “Domain Names”).
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademarks BISODEXOR, PRESTILAM, PRESTIXAM and PRESTORVAM.
...
2018-03-23 - Datos del caso
Complainant
A. The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights
(Policy, para. 4(a)(i), Rules, paras. 3(b)(viii), (b)(ix)(1))
- Sanofi-aventis and Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH are respectively the owners of the following trademarks:
- International trademark INSUMAN n° 471 549 filed on September 11, 1982 in class 5 for “Insulin preparations in injection form”, designating over 50 countries, amongst which are France, Germany, Russia, and Italy...The only ‘public policy’ type of ground that seems of potential application here is that of preserving for the future a complainant’s ability to rely on paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy in relation to the Respondent’s conduct if the Panel were to make findings against the Respondent in this proceeding which, when combined with similar findings in other proceedings, could support the use of that provision in a subsequent complaint. ...
2008-01-24 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
Rights in a Mark; Identical or Confusingly Similar
For Complainant to establish this element of the Policy,
it must submit evidence of common law rights as of the date it filed its Complaint,
which date is determinative under the Policy. ...How, for example, is a panel to resolve whether similarity
in code results from intentional copying (as Complainant alleges) or innocently
from both parties’ use of similar computer language for similar subjects
(as Respondent alleges)? To the extent such questions are relevant – in
this Panel’s experience, they do not go to the heart of most UDRP cases
– they are more suited to litigation in the national courts. ...
2007-04-16 - Datos del caso
The Panel will now review each of the three cumulative elements set forth in Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy to determine whether Complainant has complied with such requirements.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel notes that the KTKA service mark was registered with the USPTO as of June 28, 1988 and that such registration expired on October 1, 1996. ...In that case the panel identified the respondent as the same appearing in other similar cases: “In all of those cases, Focus on the Family v. Web Development Group, Ltd., FA 578410 (Nat. ...
2007-10-29 - Datos del caso
Friends asserts it, inter alia –
"will use the domain names", presumably the five domain names in dispute, for political fundraising purposes,
"will use the domain names for political fundraising, promotional, commercial, and similar purposes including Internet activity and domain name registration," and
"may offer for sale buttons, shirts, and other items bearing her name ... ."
...a) of the Policy directs that complainant must prove, with respect to each domain name in issue, each of the following:
(1) The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which complainant has rights, and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name, and
(3) The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2002-08-08 - Datos del caso
Such communications as are relevant to the resolution of this matter are referred to in the discussion and findings below.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the registered trademark MISCHCON DE REYA of the Complainant.
...Nothing before the Panel indicates that the Respondent is known by the name “Mischcon de Reya” or has any legitimate business or goodwill in that name or anything similar to it. It is apparent from the choice of domain name and the contents of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves that the Respondent is aware of the Complainant’s activities as a city law firm. ...
2014-10-02 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 1 of the IEDR Policy places on the complainant the obligation to prove that:
1.1.1 the domain name is identical or misleadingly similar to a Protected Identifier in which the complainant has rights; and
1.1.2 the respondent has no rights in law or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
1.1.3 the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.
Paragraph 1.3.1 of the IEDR Policy provides inter alia that the concept “Protected Identifiers” for the purpose of the IEDR Policy includes trade and service marks protected in the island of Ireland.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has furnished evidence of its ownership of the famous SAMSUNG trademark and its rights in the mark as a Protected Identifier within the definition in Paragraph 1.3.1 of the IEDR Policy on the island of Ireland.
...
2014-01-20 - Datos del caso
Hacking into Complainant’s account and stealing the disputed domain name suffice to establish bad faith in registration and use. In Complainant’s words, “in very similar cases, other Panels have found facts like these more than sufficient to establish bad faith registration and/or use.” ...As in Yellowstone Mountain, supra the Panel will proceed to consider the merits.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) requires Complainant to demonstrate two things: a right in a mark and identity with or confusing similarity between the mark and the disputed domain name. ...
2013-09-16 - Datos del caso
Neither as an individual person nor as a business has the Respondent been known by the disputed domain name or as owner of any trade mark similar to the disputed domain name. The Respondent is currently using it in such manner that consumers are diverted and the Complainant’s trade mark is tarnished. ...The Respondent states that a big company like the Complainant should have registered the disputed domain name a long time ago if the domain name was so important to the Complainant and its interests.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is identical with the Community Trade Mark ASSISTANSIA in which the Complainant has rights and which was registered more than half a year before the registration of the disputed domain name. ...
2013-10-24 - Datos del caso
Because no objection has been raised and there is nothing in the file demonstrating an overriding need to change course at this point, the Panel finds that the proceeding should conclude in English to promote expedition and avoid unnecessary costs associated with translation.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant owns registered rights in the BELFIUS mark that precede registration of the disputed domain name by many years. ...These factors are delineated as appropriate evidence of bad faith use by Section 3.3 of WIPO Overview 3.0, and have been cited as evidence of bad faith use in similar contexts. See, e.g., Societe des Eaux dee Volvic v. Yasushi Okabayashi / Kikakusha, Tokorozawa-shi,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-03-16 - Datos del caso
The Complainant notes that previous WIPO panels under similar circumstances came to the same conclusions (see Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmellows,
WIPO Case No. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has proved its rights in the SKYSCANNER trademark through international registrations dating back to 2009 designating numerous countries worldwide including the Russian Federation, and also through national trademark registrations registered in various countries of the world.
...
2021-09-06 - Datos del caso
The Complainant contends that prior UDRP panels have found bad faith registration and
use in similar circumstances involving impersonation and fraud.
The Complainant requests the transfer of the Domain Name.
...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2025-05-30 - Datos del caso