A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the FORTY SEVEN/47 Trademarks. The Panel finds the Disputed Domain
Name is confusingly similar to these trademarks. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the FORTY SEVEN/47 Trademarks. The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to these trademarks. ...
2022-09-14 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant asserts registered rights in the LAMBORGHINI trademark. The Complainant submits that
the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the LAMBORGHINI trademark. ...page 4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under the first element, the Complainant must establish that the disputed domain name is identical with, or
confusingly similar to, the Complainant’s trademark rights.
...
2023-03-28 - Case Details
In all the circumstances, the Panel
determines that English be the language of the proceeding.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established that it has rights to the Trade Mark.
...The Complainant submits that the language of the proceeding should be English for the following reasons:
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established that it has rights to the Trade Mark.
...
2022-12-05 - Case Details
In particular, the Complainant asserts that:
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
- The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered BNP PARIBAS trademark, 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 trademark rights and the disputed domain name must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
...
2021-12-06 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has properly asserted its rights in the BORBONE Trademark due to the long use and
numerous registrations worldwide.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-09-19 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), the Complainant shall prove that the Disputed Domain Name is
identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-11-13 - Case Details
Hence, the inclusion of the gTLD, in the disputed domain names is not a factor in analyzing whether a
disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark in which Complainant asserts rights.
Furthermore, the Panel considers that the reproduction of the trademark EQUINOR, by the disputed domain
names, is sufficient ground to establish that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the
trademark. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-11-05 - Case Details
page 3
Notably, the Complainant contends that:
I. Identical or Confusingly Similar
That the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s EQUINOR trademark as it
coincides with the string of the disputed domain name’s first seven letters. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-11-14 - Case Details
The parties differ on the question of whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BANKWEST mark. The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to this mark, because its mark is wholly incorporated in the disputed domain name and the appended word “arena” does nothing to distinguish its mark. The Respondent denies that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar because the Complainant does not have registered rights in the words “bank” and “west” standing alone, or alternatively the marks are not confusingly similar because the Complainant has not registered its marks in Class 46, which is the class in which the Respondent intends to offer services.
...
2018-01-09 - Case Details
AAIM,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0403.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy Complainant must establish rights in a trademark and secondly that the domain name in dispute is identical to or confusingly similar to the trademark in which Complainant has rights.
...D2000-0429, finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar).
The domain name in dispute is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trade marks ACM and ACM AWARDS.
...
2008-08-05 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel must find that the Complainant has a trademark or service mark and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark or service mark for the Complainant to succeed.
...It is well established that a domain name that wholly incorporates a trademark may be confusingly similar to such trademark for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of common or generic words"; The Bonita Bay Group, Inc. et al. v. ...
2017-05-08 - Case Details
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to and fully incorporates the Complainant’s trademarks and brand. An aural pronunciation and visual comparison of the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s brand and trademark.
...The Panel therefore admitted the supplemental filing which provided evidence of that change.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the trademark FULL TILT POKER. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to that mark.
...
2011-03-21 - Case Details
D2001-0110, stating "The incorporation of a Complainant's well-known trademark in the registered Domain Name is considered sufficient to find the Domain Name confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark." See also, paragraph 1.9 of WIPO Overview 3.0: "a domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first requirement that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered trademark, under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
B. ...
2018-06-27 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark. It observes that the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's trademark MAZARS in its entirety. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's trademark MAZARS and in this Panel's view the inclusion of the additional term "consulting" does not dispel the disputed domain name from being identical or confusingly similar and is not sufficient to render the disputed domain name distinctive from the Complainant's mark. ...
2014-09-01 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element requires the Panel to consider two issues: first, whether the Complainant has rights in a relevant mark; and, second, whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that mark.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant owns registrations for the F5 mark (that predate the registration of the disputed domain name).
...
2021-08-11 - Case Details
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the SWAROVSKI mark. The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's SWAROVSKI mark in its entirety. ...The registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a registered and famous mark weighs in favor of a finding of bad faith registration. ...
2014-05-09 - Case Details
Applying that test, the Panel finds that the domain
name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, since it is
essentially or virtually identical to it. ...Consistent with these and other decisions, the Panel has no hesitation
in concluding that the domain name is essentially identical to the trademark
and certainly confusingly similar to it.
In view of the above, the Panel holds that both domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
...
2005-02-01 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
First, the Complainant must prove that the disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...The Panel finds that the Respondent’s Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s VERISIGN marks. The disputed Domain Name incorporates the entirety of the Complainant’s VERISIGN mark. ...
2006-05-17 - Case Details
Complainant asserts:
(i) The Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s world-famous PLAYBOY trademark and Complainant’s THE PLAYBOY CHANNEL service mark.
...D2000-0937, stating: "the panel finds that the close misspellings
at issue here, and , are confusingly
similar to the AltaVista mark"). The Panel notes that this decision involves
the same Respondent and substantially similar facts. ...
2002-03-21 - Case Details
Seocho, NAF Claim No. 149187 (finding confusingly similar to ). The Domain Name is virtually identical to Complainant’s COMERICA Mark, differing only by the replacement of the letter “i” with the letter “u”. Because Respondent has committed typosquatting, the Domain Name at issue is, by definition, confusingly similar to Complainant’s COMERICA Mark. Edmunds.com, Inc v. Triple E Holdings Limited,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-08-31 - Case Details