Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel holds that the disputed domain name, , is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered marks, THE PARAGON and PARAGONGIFTS.COM. ...Prior panels have also held that the use of a confusingly similar domain name to trigger pop up advertisements for third party websites and products is evidence of bad faith. ...
2007-05-18 - Case Details
The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's UPROMISE mark because it fully incorporates that mark. See PepsiCo, Inc. v. ...D2001-1184 (use of short phrases with well-known mark still found confusingly similar to that mark).
For these reasons, the Panel concludes that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the UPROMISE mark, a service mark in which Complainant has rights.
...
2008-12-24 - Case Details
No. 1,280,476 covering “nutritional supplements containing vitamins,” in Class 5.
The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s PURITAN and PURITAN’S PRIDE marks. The disputed domain names are slightly misspelled versions of the Complainant’s marks and thus confusingly similar to those marks.
...There are a substantial number of panel decisions which have found that such
domain names are confusingly similar to the marks which they misspell (See e.g.
Yurtici Kargo Servisi A.S. v. Yurticicargo Yurticikargo, WIPO
Case No. ...
2005-10-17 - Case Details
D2000-1007
(November 16, 2000) ( found to be confusingly similar to “SONY”
mark because “the letters ‘my’, to an English language reader,
introduce the concept of possessiveness. ...The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered “JAFRA” mark and the Panel finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy have been met.
...
2005-11-08 - Case Details
Paragraph 4.c of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances any one
of which, if proved, shall demonstrate Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests
to the domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii) above.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Domain Name
Complainant has proved that Respondent’s Domain Name is confusingly similar
to trademarks in which Complainant has rights.
...D2000-1632 (WIPO
January 18, 2001) (finding that "ebay4sex.com" was confusingly similar
to complainant’s "ebay" mark); General Electric Co. v. Basalt Management,
Case No. ...
2001-06-08 - Case Details
Complainant
(1) The Domain Names are Identical or Confusingly Similar to a Trademark in which Complainant has Rights
The domain names and are confusingly
similar with the trademarks FERRARI. ...D2001-1229: domain names and similar are
confusingly similar with trademark ALTADIS); Ellerman Investments Ltd. and
The Ritz Hotel Casino Ltd. v. ...
2003-03-13 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that:
a) The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark HYTORC. The prefixes “hy” and “hi” are virtually synonymous and identical and/or confusingly similar as to appearance, spelling, sound, connotation and/or commercial impression. ...However, the first limb of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is not satisfied by merely showing that the domain name and trademark are similar. The burden is only discharged by showing that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark. ...
2012-07-19 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel does not necessarily consider the question of whether the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark to be straightforward. ...Accordingly the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CEIDF mark and hence the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...
2022-04-07 - Case Details
The deletion of the generic
term “the” does not avoid the conclusion that this domain name is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. See, e.g., Mandarin
Oriental Services B.V. v. Control Alt Delete, WIPO
Case No. ...Walsucks and Walmarket Puerto
Rico D2000-0477 among others, Transfer.
In the event that a domain name confusingly similar to a trademark is being used for a genuine non-commercial free speech web site, there are two main views. ...
2006-09-19 - Case Details
Complainant further contends that the Domain Name is identical with and confusingly similar to the POKEMON® marks.
Respondent has not contested the assertions by Nintendo that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the POKEMON® marks.
...The WIPO panel agreed with Complainant, based on facts similar to those set forth in this Complaint, that the Registrant unlawfully registered an identical or confusingly similar domain name in bad faith. ...
2001-01-29 - Case Details
Given the substitution of letters (“e” to “c”), the Domain Name and mark
cannot be said to be identical, but the Domain Name is certainly confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
VEOLIA trademark.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the VEOLIA trademark for the purposes of the
Policy and thus paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been established.
...The very purpose in choosing the confusingly similar Domain Name was to deliberately create a false
impression of association with the Complainant. ...
2022-09-02 - Case Details
The registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or well-known trade mark by an unconnected entity can lead to a presumption of bad faith. ...D2003-0742 in which the panel held that using confusingly similar domain names to redirect Internet users away from a complainant’s website amounted to bad faith.
...
2021-08-31 - Case Details
Complainants
The Complainants submit that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to trade marks in which they have rights. The Complainants argue that the Domain Names and are confusingly similar to the VERA&JOHN trade mark as they consist of the terms “Vera” and “John”, without the ampersand, and repeat one of the terms. ...B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Panel to consider first whether the Complainants have established relevant trade mark rights. ...
2018-04-17 - Case Details
In particular, the Complainant asserts that:
The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has
rights.
- The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered BLACKBULL and
BLACKBULL MARKETS trademarks, in light of the fact that it wholly incorporates the Complainant’s mark...The Panel may draw appropriate
inferences from the available evidence submitted by the Complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element, the Complainant must have relevant UDRP rights in a trademark and the disputed
domain name must be identical or confusingly similar to such trademark.
...
2022-07-08 - Case Details
Complainant
The following is a summary of the key contentions of the Complainant.
The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant
has rights
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark in which it has extensive rights. ...Attracting Internet
traffic by using a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark with the intention of profiting
from the reputation and goodwill of the trademark, is evidence of bad faith.
...
2023-07-13 - Case Details
This finding is not inconsistent with previous decisions under the Policy in which other panels have found shortened versions of trademarks appearing in domain names to be confusingly similar to those trademarks after evaluating the content on the websites using those domain names. ...D2008-2003, in which the Panel found the domain name was not confusingly similar to the trademark SOUTH PARK, writing: “The UDRP was designed to resolve clear cases of cyber squatting, but not to provide a mechanism for the resolution of disputes concerning content per se. ...
2020-05-19 - Case Details
After receipt of the demand letter, all content was removed from the website.
(1) Confusingly similar:
Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the famous TRADER family of marks, including the AUTO TRADER marks, in which Complainant has well-established rights. ...In this case, however, the Respondents did not submit a Response.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant is required under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy to prove that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. ...
2009-11-30 - Case Details
ii) Respondent does not dispute Complainant’s allegations that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the RED ROOF Trademarks.
iii) Respondent does not dispute Complainant’s allegation that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the Domain Names.
...Identity or Confusing Similarity
Complainant further contends that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the RED ROOF Trademarks pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
Respondent has not contested the assertions by Complaint that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the RED ROOF Trademark.
...
2001-12-31 - Case Details
Respondent’s deletion of a letter "e" from Complainant’s trademark
COLDWATER CREEK creates a term that is confusingly similar to such mark. See
Reuters Limited v. Global Net 2000, Inc, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0441 (July 13, 2000), in that "The domain
name which differs by only one letter from a trademark has a greater tendency
to be confusingly similar to the trademark where the trademark is highly distinctive."
...D2000-0587 (August 10, 2000), typosquatting is "a
practice that has been condemned and been found to be confusingly similar to
the marks which they mimic".
Therefore, the Panel finds that the domain name is
confusingly similar to the trademark COLDWATER CREEK in which Complainant has
rights. ...
2003-11-25 - Case Details
D2000-0587. Here, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to OPEN SOCIETY FOUNDATIONS
trademark, merely adding the letter “s” between “society” and “foundations” and deleting the letter “s” from
“foundations”.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith...
2026-07-01 - Case Details