registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse The Respondent was required to have clicked on the Registrar notice Acknowledgment Claim when presented with the Trademark Claims Notice to complete registration of the name The Disputed Domain Name has

infringement by the Trademark Clearinghouse and as shown by his subsequent use of the Domain Name for a parking page displaying links targeting the Complainant The Respondent offer to sell the Domain Name for USD 300 on the associated website is

was verified by the Trademark Clearinghouse and is in current use The Complainant has been using the mark connection with financial and insurance services since at least as early as 1986 The Complainant s official website locates at the URL address

recorded with the Trademark Clearinghouse â ��TMCHâ �￾ so Respondent would have been required to click on an Acknowledgement of Trademark Claim when registering the Disputed Domains Respondentâ � �s use of the Disputed Domains to display â

Trademark Clearinghouse 中� �如果投诉人的BOSS商标已经登记在全球商标信息交换� 中，那么被投诉人注册该争议域名时就� 该能� �到BOSS� �已被他人注册的商标的� �知� � 虽然�

validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse.No Although you can use your validated trademark record as proof of use in your URS case you can independently provide proof of use with your URS filing No Although you can use your validated trademark

No.154450 with the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH which means that when the Respondent attempted to register the disputed domain name he would have received a warning notice from the TMCH In addition the Complainant has registered domain names

No 154450 to the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH and highlights that therefore when the Respondent attempted to register the disputed domain name it has received a warning notice from the concerned registrar and despite having received said notice

beim sog �Trademark Clearinghouse eintragen lassen Obwohl der Beschwerdegegner als er den streitigen Domainnamen volkswagen.trade für sich registrieren ließ einen Hinweis auf bestehende Markenrechte der Beschwerdeführerin 1 erhalten

with the Trade Mark Clearinghouse  Complainant asserts the following regarding the Respondent 1 The registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a word or mark URS 1.2.6.1 for which the Complainant holds a valid

Notice from the Trademark Clearinghouse on October 16 2014 informing Complainant of the registration of the Disputed Domain Name 3 As of January 21 2015 Respondent owned 177 domain names of which eighteen 18 domain names including the Disputed

the Mark with the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH the Marks status with the TMCH is VERIFIED URS Procedure 1.2.6 requires Complainant to prove by clear and convincing evidence each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain

as verified by the Trademark Clearinghouse as well as evidence of the Complainant use of the mark in China on its website http //lanxess.cn The Complainant cites the panel decision in Morgan Stanley v 摩根士丹利信息� 术 上海

record in the Trademark Clearinghouse The Respondent has also registered the trademarks of third parties which is evidence of a pattern of bad faith registration The Complainant says that it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent s

with ICANN Trademark Clearinghouse and that the disputed domain name reproduces the trademark TAG HEUER in an identical way Registrant has not disputed the foregoing Accordingly the Panel finds that the registered domain name is identical

registered in the Trademark clearinghouse since 17.04.2014 The addition of the dash and the New GTLD SOY is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks The Panel finds that the

has been listed at the Clearinghouse Complainant submitted evidence to demonstrate that it is the owner of the trademark LUFTHANSA registered in a number of countries/regions such as Community Trademark registration No 001212539 LUFTHANSA

validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse prior to the registration of the disputed domain name As a result the Respondent must have been given a trademark claims notice of the Complainant rights in the VOLKSWAGEN trademark In accordance with

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse The disputed domain name contains this trademark and only this trademark in its entirety in the second-level portion of the domain Registrant has failed to respond to Complainant contentions As a result

registered in ICANN Trademark Clearinghouse and that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a page containing a link to the registrar s website Even though the Respondent has defaulted URS Procedure 1.2.6 requires Complainant to make a prima facie

under either the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH or the Uniform Rapid Suspension System URS mechanisms which were available in relation to the toys gTLD The Respondent relies on the fact that he says the Complainant took no steps to proactively

trademark in the Trademark Clearinghouse on July 16 2013 prior to the registration of the Domain Name on April 16 2014 The Domain Name has at all times been directed to a parking web page 5 Parties Contentions A Complainant The Complainant

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse since November 26 2013 Respondent must therefore have been aware of the Trademark and of Complainant rights in the Trademark when it registered the domain name Respondent has made no use of the domain

validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH as a result of which the Respondent would have been given a trademark claims notice of the Complainant s rights in the VOLKSWAGEN trade mark 3 The disputed domain name was registered and is being

registered in the TradeMark ClearingHouse TMCH since November 26th 2013 The wording SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC is related only with the Complainant The new gTLD PARIS associated with the trademark SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC refers to the Complainant activity in

verified with the Trade Mark Clearinghouse Complainant asserts the following regarding the Respondent 1 The registered domain name s is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word or mark URS/.usRS 1.2.6.1 for which the Complainant holds a

registered in the TradeMark ClearingHouse TMCH Further the trademark is used on the Complainant s website www.corporate.arcelormittal.com In the email dated February 24 2015 Respondent expressed its will to resolve the case amicably Namely it

and verified in the Trademark Clearinghouse prior to the launch of the moscow TLD and the registration of the disputed domain name by the Respondent Respondent was on notice of Complainant´s rights in and to the Trademark ULYSSE NARDIN but ignored

Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH 中注册的商标ALSTOM相同� �ALSTOM� �国际驰名商标� �被投诉人注册与之相同的争议域名，� �为了� �过该商标商誉，获得不� 利益� �

as a result of the Trademark Clearinghouse used by the gTLD registries This fact further evidences the Respondent bad faith registration Second the Panel finds that the Respondent has used the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith As indicated above

recorded with the Trademark Clearinghouse and pursuant to that recordation Respondent was provided with notice of Complainants rights in the KPMG Mark before she registered the Domain Name See International Business Machines Corporation v Hka c/o

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse The Respondent was required to have clicked on the Registrar notice Acknowledgment Claim when presented with the Trademark Claims Notice to complete registration of the name I find that at the time of

and verified in the Trademark Clearinghouse prior to the launch of the moscow TLD and the registration of the Disputed Domain Name by Respondent and Respondent was on notice of Complainant rights in and to the TM CASTORAMA is an arbitrary term

trade mark with the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH but Respondent persisted with the registration of the disputed domain name despite having been sent a warning notice from the TMCH of Complainant trade mark The cumulative circumstances strongly

is registered with ICANN TM clearinghouse Findings of Fact OptionalComment URS Procedure 1.2.6 requires Complainant to prove by clear and convincing evidence each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be

CALLEBAUT into the Trademark Clearinghouse on January 10 2014 and asserts that the Respondent and the Complainant have received notices from the Trademark Clearinghouse in which the collision of the disputed domain name with the Complainant

validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse b Proof of use may also be submitted directly with the URS complaint And 1.2.6.2 that the Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name and 1.2.6.3 that the domain was registered and

Data file of the Trademark Clearinghouse 2 The Examiner deems such SMD file as valid evidence of the trademark FOOT LOCKERâ � �s use as it was previously validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse to achieve the objectives for which it was

validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse ii � � � � � � � Providing a sample of use submitted directly with the URS Complaintâ �￾ a Existence of a trademark in which the Complainant has rights and is in current use Complainant submitted

validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse ii � � � � � � � Providing a sample of use submitted directly with the URS Complaintâ �￾ a Existence of a trademark in which the Complainant has rights and is in current use Complainant proved its

from the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names blackanddecker.email and dewalt.email Although through the TMCH Claims Notification process Respondent had received prior notification of the

from the Trademark Clearinghouse regarding the activation of the disputed domain name â ��ibm.sexyâ � � It is established that despite receiving a notification from the Trademark Clearinghouse and two cease and desist letters from the

with the Trade Mark Clearinghouse � Complainant asserts the following regarding the Respondent 1 The registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a word or mark URS 1.2.6.1 for which the Complainant holds a valid national

validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse b Proof of use may also be submitted directly with the URS complaint And 1.2.6.2 that the Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name and 1.2.6.3 that the domain was registered and

validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse b Proof of use may also be submitted directly with the URS complaint And 1.2.6.2 that the Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name and 1.2.6.3 that the domain was registered and

validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse b � � � � � � � Providing a sample of use submitted directly with the URS Complaintâ �￾ a Existence of a trademark in which the Complainant has rights and is in current use Complainant proved its

the trademarks with the Clearinghouse before Respondentâ � �s registration of the domain name so Respondent should have received notice of Complainantâ � �s rights at the time of registration There is no evidence of use by Respondent or

is also registered in TMCH clearinghouse LOMBAX® is a lumbar support belt with locking system into two parts See http //www2.thuasne.fr/thuasne/front/site/france/lang/fr/pid/768 The New GTLD « BLUE » makes reference to the color of

through the Trademark Clearinghouse system of Nissan s trademark rights The Examiner recalls that the disputed domain name is automatically forwarded to a website featuring various links which are unrelated to Complainant such as School

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse Respondent is using the domain name to confuse Internet users looking for Complainantâ � �s services and to mislead Internet users as to the source of the domain and website Respondent has created a

through the Trademark Clearinghouse system of Nissanâ � �s trademark rights Further given that Respondent presumably earns income each time an internet user clicks on one of the links found at the infiniti.today site the Examiner�

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR The astonmartin.club domain name is confusingly similar to a word mark for which Complainant holds a valid national registration and that is in current use The domain name

verified with the Trade Mark Clearinghouse Complainant asserts the following regarding the Respondent 1 The registered domain name s is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word or mark URS 1.2.6.1 for which the Complainant holds a valid

are lodged with the Trademark Clearinghouse as the Respondent engaged in a pattern of registering well-known trademarks as domain names and as the Respondent revealed that it is well aware of the Complainant and its reputation and has admitted that

validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse and the trade mark is registered in Spain where the Respondent is based The disputed domain name was registered to sell or rent the disputed domain name to the Complainant and/or intentionally to attempt

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse and therefore said trademark was made known to the Respondent by the TMCH when he applied for the domain name carvel.nyc Even though the Respondent has defaulted URS Procedure 1.2.6 requires Complainant

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse The Complainant does not state when the trademarks were so registered However the Respondent points out that the sunrise period for the finance gTLD expired on August 30 2014 and he did not register the

verified with the Trade Mark Clearinghouse the SMD for this entry is 000000160421387000023315 �1 Even though the Respondent has defaulted URS Procedure 1.2.6 requires Complainant to make a prima facie case proven by clear and convincing evidence

validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse prior to the registration of the dispute disputed domain name As a result Respondent must have been given a trademark claims notice of Complainant s rights in the HOLIDAY INN trademark Hence it is

period and the Trademark Clearinghouse and was not initially optimistic as to his chances of successfully acquiring the domain name Respondent contends Complainant in not taking advantage of the sunrise period or the Trademark Clearinghouse

KLEIN trademark into the Clearinghouse therefore the Complainant ought not to succeed However a Under ICANN rules on the purpose of the Clearinghouse it is explicitly stated at paragraph 1.6 that Failure to submit trademarks into the

as validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse On the other hand the Response neither puts in issue Complainant s URS Procedure 1.2.6.1 contentions nor provides any evidence URS 1.2.6.2 Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name

IBM mark via the Trademark Clearinghouse and Respondent registered the disputed domain name in spite of that notification This Panel finds the notification from the Trademark Clearinghouse to be instructive In conjunction with the new gTLD

Proof of use issued by the Clearinghouse The disputed domain name marieclaire.international is identical to the registered trademars of Complainant as it incorporates the registered word mark in its entirety Adding the gTLD international

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse When Respondent registered the disputed domain name citrix.equipment it would have received a notification that the disputed domain name matched a registered trademark The Respondent was required to have

Mark with the Trademark Clearinghouse Therefore Respondent got sufficient notice when attempting to register the Disputed Domain Name Respondent decided with full knowledge of the VOLKSWAGEN Mark to continue to register the Disputed Domain

with the ICANN Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH on August 27 2013 Complainant explains that as a result of the TMCH registration and the so-called Claims Service any registrant including Respondent receives a warning notice when attempting to

entered into The Trademark Clearinghouse prior to the filing of the subject domain name Thus the Registrant adopted its domain with the full knowledge of the Complainant s prior rights to the trademark The records of the case do not provide any

validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse prior to the registration of the dispute disputed domain name As a result the Respondent must have been given a trademark claims notice of the Complainantâ � �s rights and therefore registered the

validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse prior to the registration of the dispute disputed domain name As a result the Respondent must have been given a trademark claims notice of the Complainantâ � �s rights and therefore registered the

trademark with each Trademark Clearinghouse notice provided at registration At the time of registration of brand email domain names Respondent s idea was to use each brand email as a non-public email server which would capture and segment the data

validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse prior to the registration of the dispute disputed domain name As a result the Respondent must have been given a trademark claims notice of the Complainantâ � �s rights and therefore registered the

qui est le TMCH Trademark Clearinghouse qui est le nouveau mode de protection des marques sur internet D autres unités d enregistrement ont par ailleurs mis en place des mécanismes de protection des droits RPM tels que la procédure sunrise

verified with the Trade Mark Clearinghouse Complainant asserts the following regarding the Respondent 1 The registered domain name s is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word or mark URS 1.2.6.1 for which the Complainant holds a valid

validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse FISKARS trademark is extremely well-known globally the Registration has no affiliation to Fiskars Corporation the trademark FISKARS is also registered in Russia where the Registrant is based so the

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse the Respondent was required to click on the Acknowledgement of Trademark Claim when presented with the Trademark Claims Notice to complete registration of the domain name at the time of registration of

this trademark in the TMCH Clearinghouse Respondent registered the disputed domain name despite receiving a notification that the domain name matches a trademark registered with the Clearinghouse Respondent at the time of the registration of the

is also registered in TMCH clearinghouse New GTLD EMAIL associated with the trademark BPE refers to the communication offered by the Complainant to his customers B Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name The Registrant

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH Complainant owns additional trademark registrations including U.S Reg Nos 2699371 3762299 and 3989089 and registrations covering at least five other jurisdictions as evidenced in Annex A Complainant

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse instituted by ICANN Respondent s website is used to promote computer graphics cards and computer and gaming peripherals none of which include Complainant s GEFORCE-marked products 5 Parties Contentions A

Marks with the Trademark Clearinghouse and that the Respondent would have been notified of the Complainant s UNIQLO Marks under the Clearinghouse s Trademark Claims Service at the time the Respondent sought to register the disputed domain name

trademarks from the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH when she registered the disputed domain names As such Respondent would have had actual notice of Complainant s trademark rights at the time of the registration of the disputed domain names in 2014

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse when Respondent attempted to register the disputed domain name he would have received â ��a warning noticeâ �￾ from the Clearinghouse Despite having received this notice Respondent proceeded with his

through the Trademark Clearinghouse instituted by ICANN had or can be expected to have had prior knowledge of Complainant trademarks at the time the Domain Name was registered For reasons largely overlapping with the Panel conclusion that

No 154450 to the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH and highlights that therefore when the Respondent attempted to register the disputed domain name it has received a warning notice from the concerned registrar and despite having received said notice

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse Complainant is currently using its PRINCIPAL mark in connection with the services recited in the service mark registrations These registrations and use evidence Complainant rights for the purposes of the

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods The Examiner finds as follows The

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse Respondent then offered to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant for half the costs of arbitration plus an additional 150 FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD The Examiner may find that the

validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse b � � � � � � � Providing a sample of use submitted directly with the URS Complaintâ �￾ a Existence of a trademark in which the Complainant has rights and is in current use Complainant proved its

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse The Respondent was required to have clicked on the Registrar notice Acknowledgment Claim when presented with the Trademark Claims Notice to complete registration of the name At the time of registration of

with ICANN Trademark Clearinghouse demonstrating its prior rights to any new gTLD consisting of the Ancestry trademark and a new domain extension Contentions regarding Respondent s disputed domain name Ancestry.pro being identical to

November 2013 beim Trademark Clearinghouse angemeldet Jemand der beabsichtigt einen mit der Marke identischen Domainnamen zu registrieren erhält in diesem Fall eine Warnung Somit kann man davon ausgehen dass auch der Beschwerdegegner eine Warnung

No 154450 with the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH so as to protect it against cybersquatting meaning that the Respondent persisted with the registration of the disputed domain name despite receipt of a warning notice from the TMCH and knowing that

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse Respondent offered to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant for 1500 DETERMINATION After reviewing the Complainantâ �� ��s submissions the Examiner determines that the Complainant has demonstrated

by ICANNâ � �s Trademark Clearinghouse for proof of use Respondent contends that in determining whether the domain names are identical the generic top level domain â ��.emailâ �￾ should be considered as part of the domain names Respondent

trademarks in the Trademark Clearinghouse The Respondent registered both disputed domain names using a top level domain that clearly relates to the specific goods that Complainantâ � �s trademarks are registered and used for namely â

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse Respondent would have been notified of Complainant trade mark rights by the Clearinghouse Respondent has proceeded to register and use the domain name in order to intentionally attract for commercial gain

was submitted to a Trademark Clearinghouse one of the benefits of entering a trademark into the Clearinghouse is notification by the Clearinghouse when a domain name matching a trademark owner s verified mark has been registered similarly when an

of the words european and clearinghouse directly behind the CME trademark is insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity Confusing similarity is especially acute in this case where the generic or merely descriptive term i.e

validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse Complainant has provided a copy of a Trademark Clearinghouse document stating that proof of use is valid and that an attached Declaration and a single sample have been uploaded The attachments themselves