What I need doing now to close the issue with this domain."
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name begins with and contains the entirety of the Complainant's trademark and company name, both of which have been established to be well-known. ...
2015-11-11 - 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
The Respondent sent two inquiry emails to the Center on July 21 and 23, 2020 regarding the reinstitution of the proceeding.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark AFTENPOSTEN.
The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. ...
2020-08-14 - Datos del caso
In order not to unduly delay the proceedings, the Panel determines under Article 6 of the Policy, Articles 8 and 31 of the Rules, and Paragraph 18(a) of the WIPO Supplemental Rules that the language of the proceeding in this case shall be English.
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar to the Complainant’s Name or Mark in which the Complainant has Civil Rights or Interests
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has trademark rights upon inter alia China Trademark No. ...
2022-03-11 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
This is a clear case of abuse of the domain name system that the UDRP was designed to stop.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first of the Policy element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test
for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the
Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. ...
2026-01-12 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the
Domain Name:
(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which
Complainant has rights; and
(ii) 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.
...
2024-04-24 - Datos del caso
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. ...
2024-04-16 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark.
Disregarding the country code Top-Level Domain, the disputed domain name is identical to the Trade Mark.
...
2025-09-11 - Datos del caso
With respect to the first element, the Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is
identical/confusingly similar to the SWEDSEC trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant notes that the trademark SWEDSEC is included in its entirety in the disputed domain
name. ...
2026-01-14 - Datos del caso
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s trademark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed
domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
...
2024-12-05 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements, which the Complainant must satisfy in order to succeed:
(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.
...
2024-10-30 - Datos del caso
Art. 3 para. 1 lit d UCA confers
protection to unregistered distinctive signs against confusingly similar signs. This protection is based on
priority of use (see e.g. Marbach/Ducrey/Wild, Immaterialgüter- und Wettbewerbsrecht, 4th ed., p. 265). ...
2024-08-26 - 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 is plainly identical to the Complainant’s registered BIOMERIEUX mark. ...
2022-08-01 - Datos del caso
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for
confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the
Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. ...
2023-03-14 - Datos del caso
Complainant
The Complainant contends, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, that the disputed domain name
is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which it has rights, that the Respondent has no rights or
legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name has been
registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2023-11-01 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP, 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 has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2023-05-30 - Datos del caso
Notably, the Complainant contends that:
a) It is the owner of the DSM Mark, having registered the DSM Mark in a number of jurisdictions including
Benelux and the European Union. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the DSM Mark since it
adds the descriptive abbreviation “-chem” to the wholly incorporated DSM Mark.
...
2024-03-11 - 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 LEAFILTER arising from its registered trade mark for that term. ...
2017-01-26 - Datos del caso
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the LEGO and LEGOLAND marks in which it has registered rights. The Complainant points out that these marks have substantial inherent and acquired distinctiveness. ...
2016-12-09 - Datos del caso
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark DATPIFF by virtue of its registration of the trademark in block letters and in logo form in the United States of America, the European Union and under the Madrid Agreement. ...
2016-11-29 - Datos del caso