It follows from the above that the Complainant does not have exclusive use
of or rights to the word SCORPIONS
5.2.2 Identical or Confusingly Similar
Subject to the forging, the Response does not deny that the domain name is
identical to the Complainant's SCORPIONS registered trademark.
5.2.3 Laches
The domain name in issue was registered in November 1996. ...That is, the Policy
expressly recognises that other circumstances can be evidence relevant
to the requirements of paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and (iii) of the Policy.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.5 The Respondent does not dispute that the domain name and the SCORPION
trademark are identical. ...
2001-12-10 - Datos del caso
The Respondents had registered the said Domain Name to cash upon the reputation of the Complainant and to bar the Complainant from using the said Domain Name. The said Domain Name is identical and confusingly similar to the trademark BENZER in which the Complainant has rights and the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the said Domain Name. ...Elements to be proven
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy envisages that to succeed, the Complainant must establish that:
(i) the Respondents’ 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 interest in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) the Respondents’ domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2001-04-30 - 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:
(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.
...C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The panel need not dwell on this topic as both of the Parties are agreed that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark in all material respects. ...
2020-08-27 - Datos del caso
Jose Luis Fernandez Mendoza, supra), sumamente similar al contenido del sitio web asociado al nombre de dominio en disputa , lo que permite asumir que los nombres de dominio en disputa y aquellos materia de los casos Ternium México S.A. ...The use of the disputed domain name as an email address for the deceitful obtention of a payment by trying to impersonate Complainant by using a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark is enough evidence of bad faith”. En el mismo sentido The Coca-Cola Company v. ...
2020-01-13 - Datos del caso
The Complainant only seems interested in domain names if someone else takes them first.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights in the mark “Paisabazaar” by virtue of its registered trade marks .
...In particular, the webpage is dominated by definitions of the dictionary terms comprised in the disputed domain name, similar to those cited in the Response.
Nor has the Respondent produced any evidence which links him to the “old art effects” industry. ...
2019-01-15 - Datos del caso
Due to the deterioration of the relationship between the parties, the Complainant arranged for a similar product to be produced for it by a third party, and proceeded to begin selling that product under the name "Snoreeze". ...Discussion and Panel Findings
This section is structured by reference to the elements required by paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
5.1 Domain Names identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s Marks
The domain names in dispute are , and . ...
2001-05-18 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied:
(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.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Clearly the registered trademarks for the word mark INVAR cited by the Complainant, as noted in the Factual Background section above, are identical to the disputed domain name, bearing in mind that it is customary to disregard the top level domain “.com” in cases under the Policy. ...
2012-06-18 - Datos del caso
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent’s domain name www-ctv.com is
...confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known trademark CTV in that the prefix "www" is a universally known acronym for the world-wide web, and it will therefore be assumed by consumers that the domain name is in fact functionally identical in sound, appearance, and in the idea suggested thereby, to the Complainant’s trademark CTV.
...According to the UDRP, Paragraph 4(a)(i), is the domain name identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights?
In this instance, the Respondent has inserted "www-" in front of the letters CTV to form its .com domain name. ...
2000-12-21 - Datos del caso
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant develops, produces and markets natural and homeopathic medicines and cosmetics. ...This practice can result in the addition of unnecessary complication and cost to what is intended to be a relatively quick and inexpensive procedure.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the mark WALA by virtue of its registered trade marks as well as unregistered trade mark rights deriving from its use of that term since the 1930s.
...
2013-07-22 - Datos del caso
Consistently
with the decisions on “cyberflight”, therefore, the Former Registrant remains a Respondent for the purposes
of this proceeding.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has proven that it owns registered trade marks for NOKIA. The disputed domain name is
identical to the Complainant’s registered trademark (disregarding the “.au” ccTLD as a functional component
page 6
of the domain name system). ...The first element that
the Complainant must establish is that the disputed domain name is identical with, or confusingly similar to,
the Complainant’s name, trade mark or service mark.
On the question of identity or confusing similarity, what is required is simply a visual and aural comparison
and assessment of the disputed domain name itself to the Complainant’s trade marks: see for example,
GlobalCenter Pty Ltd v. ...
2023-12-12 - Datos del caso
Under paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, “[a] Panel shall decide a 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
As a threshold matter, the Panel must decide whether Complainant has standing to bring a UDRP action
based on unregistered trademark rights.
...It is the consensus view of UDRP panels that, where a domain name incorporates the entirety
of a trademark, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
It is the well-established view of UDRP panels that a generic Top-Level Domain such as “.com” is viewed as
a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity
test (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1, and cases cited thereunder).
...
2023-04-04 - Datos del caso
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s KSB trademarks for which the Complainant has pre-existing rights.
...
2011-12-01 - Datos del caso
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.
...
2013-03-27 - Datos del caso
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its registered trade mark PENTAIR; that the Respondent has 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 trade mark; and that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2015-09-15 - Datos del caso
As the Complaint was filed in English and the Response was filed in German, and since the Panelist is a German native speaker, there is no need to translate the Response into English and the Panel will issue this decision in English.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The second level of the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's trademark. ...
2015-11-30 - Datos del caso
Respondent
The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it has developed a very substantial business and web presence under its MYPROTEIN brand and its website at “www.myprotein.com” since inception in 2004. ...
2014-02-18 - Datos del caso
On this basis, the Panel determines the language of proceedings to be English.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is composed of the Complainant’s registered Trade Mark KARICARE and gTLD “.asia”.
...
2013-10-14 - Datos del caso
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to his name Adam Leitman Bailey; that the Complainant has common law rights to his personal name because the Complainant’s personal name is used in commerce and is a distinctive identifier associated with the Complainant and the Complainant’s services; that the Respondent has 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 has been registered and used in bad faith.
...
2013-09-02 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
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 interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) The Domain Name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.
...
2013-10-25 - 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 several trademark registrations in France for LOKEO in various forms, including with stylization and additional elements, and most importantly, in plain simple text which is identical to the disputed domain name.
...
2015-04-27 - Datos del caso