This is from a WIPO decision we won:
Quote:
6. Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the burden of proof lies with the Complainant to show each of the following three elements:
(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 by the Respondent in bad faith.
|
Trademark is like Michael says; we were awarded and acronym trade mark, e.g.; ABC, that was the same as a Bank's trademark, they were a bank in Spain and we were an unrelated business in another country -- there was no possibility of confusion or dilution of the bank's trademarked brand.
Again like Michael said; ''(i)
the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and'' at very least any WIPO arbitration will be a pissing contest ...