Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s
contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name
is confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks. ...Phayze Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0430 (
held confusingly similar to CITIBANK mark); Pfizer, Inc. v. Phizer Antiques
and Robert Phizer, WIPO Case No. D2002-0410
( held confusingly similar to PFIZER mark).
...
2007-01-08 - Case Details
Tushar Sarin / Rockerzz, WIPO Case No.
DCO2015-0015 ( held confusingly similar to the AIRTEL trademark); Wachovia Corporation v.
Peter Carrington, WIPO Case No. D2002-0775 (, and
held virtually identical / confusingly similar to the WACHOVIA trademark); Backstreet Productions, Inc. v.
...D2001-0654 (, among other domain names, held confusingly similar to the
BACKSTREET BOYS trademark); ArcelorMittal (Société Anonyme) v. Name Redacted, WIPO Case No.
...
2023-09-11 - Case Details
D2006-0020 (Holding the domain name phonetically confusingly similar to the MIRAVAL mark); Microsoft Corporation v. Mike Rushton,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0123 (Holding the domain name phonetically confusingly similar to the MICROSOFT mark); VeriSign Inc. v. ...D2000-0303 (Holding the domain name phonetically confusingly similar to the VERISIGN mark).
Likewise, the second element of the disputed Domain Name, the word “force,” is phonetically confusingly similar to the corresponding “FOS” in the mark. ...
2011-11-17 - Case Details
Using a confusingly similar domain name to direct users
to unrelated advertisements is classic bad faith. See Backstreet Productions,
Inc. v. ...Respondent’s registration of its domain name, confusingly similar to
Complainant’s service marks, prevents Complainant from reflecting its
marks in a corresponding domain name. ...
2006-05-15 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the J. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Names and are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s J. ...
2020-08-12 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the SNEAKERSNSTUFF trademark.
The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SNEAKERSNSTUFF trademark. Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2021-11-26 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
A.1 Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant submits that the domain name in dispute, , consists of Complainant’s registered trademark SMOOTHWALL and is therefore confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered trademark SMOOTHWALL.
...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.
...
2008-05-08 - Case Details
The Panel has no hesitation in concluding that the domain name in dispute is virtually identical to the first of Complainant's trade-marks, and is confusingly similar to all three marks in which Complainant has demonstrated it has rights by virtue of registration.
...In fact, the contrary appears to be the case: by adopting a domain name which is confusingly similar to Complainant's trade marks, the Respondent has attempted to misleadingly divert customers away from Complainant.
...
2004-04-23 - Case Details
The Policy Paragraph 4(c) sets out three illustrative circumstances which, if proved, constitute evidence of a right or legitimate interest as described in the Policy Paragraph 4(a)(ii) referred to above.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainants assert that the domain names and are identical or confusingly similar to their trademark and trade name.
The Respondent denies that the name "jimthompsonhouse" is identical or confusingly similar to the trade name "Jim Thompson House" which the first Complainant failed to register as a domain name with the Network Solutions, Inc.
...
2000-07-18 - Case Details
D2002-0363 (finding , among others, confusingly similar to DELL); Telstra Corporation Limited v. Ozurls,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0046 (finding , among others, confusingly similar to TELSTRA).
...As the Disputed Domain Name uses the mark SOFITEL, it is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SOFITEL mark.
For all of the foregoing reasons, this Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name, , is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SOFITEL mark in which Complainant has established rights. ...
2011-08-03 - Case Details
The Complainant replied on January 14, 2005, stating that the Complainant would not pay a ransom fee in order to use the domain names that are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. No further answer was received from the Respondent. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name in dispute is clearly confusingly similar to the ASTRAZENECA trademark.
...
2005-06-02 - 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 trade mark and secondly that the disputed domain name is identical to or confusingly similar to the trademark in which Complainant has rights.
...D2003-0696 (a domain name is “nearly identical or confusingly similar” to a complainant’s mark when it “fully incorporate[s] said mark”; holding , , and other domains confusingly similar to complainant’s PEPSI mark).
...
2011-04-15 - Case Details
These similarities strongly support a finding that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark. It is also relevant that the Complainant's service mark is not descriptive. ...D2003-0707, which cites
other panel decisions which have made similar findings.)
For these reasons, the Panel finds that all five Domain Names are confusingly similar to the mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2004-10-08 - Case Details
D2001-0918 (finding the domain name confusingly similar to trade and service marks in which AOL has rights, namely ). Backstreet Prods., Inc. v. ...D2001-0654 (finding, inter alia, the domain names and virtually identical and confusingly similar to the Backstreet Boys mark); AltaVista Company v. Saeid Yomtobian,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0937 (finding the domain names and confusingly similar to the trademark Alta Vista); Oxygen Media, LLC v. ...
2018-05-29 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first and prominent part, “maxviril”, of the disputed domain name is phonetically identical to the trademark of the Complainant. ...The offering of such goods under a domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark is not bona fide for the purposes of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy.
...
2014-02-13 - Case Details
page 3
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold inquiry: a threshold investigation into whether a
complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. ...Thus, the Panel concludes that the
Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s JUNGLE BOYS Mark.
Accordingly, the Panel f inds that the f irst element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the
Complainant.
...
2023-10-04 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(i) Identical or confusingly similar
Complainant asserts that its F5 registered trademarks protect its rights in the marks F5, F5 (and design) and F5 NETWORKS, as well as extending to protect against the confusingly similar marks, such as F5 PROTECT or F5-PROTECT.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in its F5 trademarks, based on trademark registrations in the United States. ...
2020-10-28 - Case Details
Moreover, the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, where appropriate, will decide
consistent with the consensus views captured therein.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it should be established that the disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark of the
Complainant and that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2023-04-18 - Case Details
FA1302921 (Feb. 24, 2010) (finding confusingly similar to Complainant’s OMEGA marks); Fossil, Inc. v. Galina Vilyus, NAF Claim No. FA0704000969285 (May 29, 2007) ( confusingly similar to complainant’s FOSSIL trademark).
...The Complainant has convincingly argued that therefore the Respondent cannot accrue rights to use the confusingly similar domain name for the sale of watches or timepieces without the Complainant’s consent or other justifiable reason. ...
2011-03-14 - Case Details
Having considered the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules, the Supplemental Rules and applicable principles of law, the Panel’s findings on each of the above cited elements are as follows.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires Complainant show that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights.
...With respect to using the Domain Name for the bona fide offering of towing services, Respondent asserts that “Complainant has not shown how any of its marks associated with towing or roadside services is substantially and confusingly similar to the Domain Name”. However, the Panel has found that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AAA Marks. ...
2016-09-29 - Case Details