Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that a Complainant must cumulatively establish each of the following three conditions to successfully challenge a registered domain name:
(1) 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,
(2) that the Respondent has no legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
6.2. ...
2000-10-09 - Datos del caso
Discussion
The onus is on the Complainant to prove each of the three elements set out in paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN policy, as follows:-
(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.
...
2000-10-25 - Datos del caso
Parties’ Contentions
Bernat has contended that the domain name in question is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark, that Marrodan has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name, and that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2000-10-06 - Datos del caso
Paragraph 4 (a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following:
(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; and,
(b) that the respondent has no rights or no legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and,
(c) the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
1. ...
2000-06-30 - Datos del caso
Paragraph 4 (a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following:
(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; and,
(b) that the respondent has no rights or no legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and,
(c) the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
1. ...
2000-06-30 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
The evidence presented by the parties demonstrates that Complainant’s trademarks TELAXIS and TELAXIS COMMUNICATIONS are identical or confusingly similar to the domain names and . Therefore, the requirement of Paragraph 4.a....
2000-03-07 - Datos del caso
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of
the following:
(1) that the Domain Name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly
similar to a trademark or service in which the Complainant has rights;
(2) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to
the Domain Name; and
(3) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2002-01-31 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
6.1 Applicable rules
According to Paragraph 15 a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.
6.2 Fulfillment of the requirements according to the Policy, Paragraph 4 a):
6.2.1 Domain name identical or confusingly similar to the trademark
(a) The identity between the trademarks of the Complainant and the disputed domain name is evident, generating a clear risk of confusion.
6.2.2 Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name
(a) Not only the Respondent has not justified any legitimate interest on the disputed domain name or any fair use of it, but has acquitted to the complaint filed by the Complainant while declaring to be willing to make the transfer of the domain name easy.
...
2001-10-19 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
To succeed in its Complaint, Complainant must show that each of the conditions of paragraph 4 (a) of the Policy is satisfied, namely that:
(i) the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names, and
(iii) the Domain Names have been registered and used in bad faith.
...
2001-11-15 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
To have the disputed Domain Names transferred to it, the Complainant must prove
each of the following (Policy, paragraph 4(a)):
(i) that the domain name 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 Respondent's domain name has been registered and is being used
in bad faith.
...
2001-07-13 - Datos del caso
Complainant
Complainants contend that the complained of domain name should be transferred
to them as it is identical or confusingly similar to their marks, that there
are no circumstances indicating that Respondent has any legitimate interest
in or permission to use the contested domain name, and that the evidence shows
that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2001-07-13 - Datos del caso
Complainant has not presented any evidence to support
its allegation that respondent intended or intends to attract users from Complainant’s
site.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established and documented that they have registered the trademark KIWI or trademarks incorporating KIWI in countries worldwide. ...
2005-01-07 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
To succeed in its Complaint, Complainant must show that each of the conditions of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied, namely that
1. the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which complainant has rights; and
2. the Rrespondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, and
3. the Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith.
...
2002-11-08 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
In accordance with
paragraph 4 of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("the
Policy"), a complainant must prove (i) that the domain name 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.
...
2001-05-28 - Datos del caso
First, there is no question that the domain names in dispute are confusingly similar to Complainant's MICRON and CRUCIAL marks. The inclusion of the generic terms "memory" and "internetservices" and the addition of the top-level designator ".com" in Respondent's domain names are without legal significance.
...
2001-06-15 - Datos del caso
The fact that the Panel has had some difficulties in discerning from the material presented as evidence of use, to what extent certain elements have been intended to refer to the time before the registration of the domain name and others to a later period, is, considering the evidential weight of elements clearly belonging to the earlier period, of no consequence to the finding that LUNDBERGS is a trademark in which the Complainant has rights and that it has had so already before the registration of the domain name by the Respondent.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name is identical to the Complainant’s established trademark LUNDBERGS, protected under Swedish law. ...
2003-11-24 - Datos del caso
Accordingly, while under paragraph 13.2 of the Rules, a panel may draw appropriate inferences from a respondent's default, the complainant in such circumstances must still satisfy the panel that the three elements required under the policy in question – whether the UDRP or the IEDR Policy – have been met.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element to be established by a complainant is that it has rights in a protected identifier to which the domain name is identical or misleadingly similar.
...Where the domain name which is identical or misleadingly similar to a geographical indication has been used, in good faith, by the registrant before such geographical indication was protected in the Island of Ireland.”
...
2015-06-23 - Datos del caso
Carl Johansson,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0807.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
"Where the complainant holds a nationally or regionally registered trademark or service mark, this prima facie satisfies the threshold requirement of having trademark rights for purposes of standing to file a UDRP case." ...In the Respondent's favor, nothing in the record or a quick search by the Panel reveals any other circumstance that the Respondent has engaged in similar conduct. It has not been a respondent in any other Policy proceeding, and, so far as the record reflects, it is not an aggregator of domain names. ...
2018-03-16 - Datos del caso
The principal contentions relevant to this proceeding are (1) that Complainant lacks prior rights in the mark; (2) that Respondent has a legitimate interest in the name; and (3) that Respondent registered and used the domain name in good faith.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is identical to a mark in which Complainant claims rights.
...In contrast, Respondent submits the Second Declaration of Pat Corrao, its owner, stating:
“[Complainant’s] pattern and practice is to advise its distributors to register all domain names incorporating terms similar to [Complainant’s] products . . .
[Complainant] specifically suggested that [Respondent] register any domain names the [Respondent] wished that incorporate terms similar to [Complainant’s] products . . .”
...
2008-06-05 - Datos del caso
It maintains that such use in relation to such similar services to those offered by the Complainant cannot be in good faith and that the substantive part of the disputed domain name does not correspond to any name or mark used by the Respondent.
...This issue is central to the dispute and the Panel discusses it below.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has demonstrated that it owns Community Trade Mark number 9801705 dating from March 10, 2011 for the word mark SWING4IRELAND and that this qualifies as a "Protected Identifier" for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2014-08-21 - Datos del caso