A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first of the Domain Names () is almost identical to the Trademarks to the extent that it constitutes the singular form (i.e. ...In the light of the above, the Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant's Trademarks. Therefore, Complainant has established that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is met.
...
2009-02-16 - Case Details
A new company, which will be called Bayer Schering Pharma AG is currently being formed.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain
name is identical or confusingly similar to the BAYER trademark because the
BAYER trademark is fully incorporated within the Domain Name and comprises the
dominant portion thereof, see Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to both
the BAYER and the SCHERING trademarks as the domain name fully incorporates
both trademarks. ...
2007-01-04 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant submits that the Respondent’s domain name is phonetically identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks and domain name . ...However, the following is established:-
1. The Parties are both trading on-line in similar motor parts.
2. The domain name in dispute is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark rights.
3. ...
2007-05-24 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant’s submissions can be summarized as follows:
(a) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant’s United States federal trademark registration for “KOOKS” acts as prima facie evidence of its validity and inherent distinctiveness. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first issue is whether the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. ...
2007-12-19 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant owns a trademark registration for the name XENICAL. The domain names in dispute both involve adding to the trademark name a composite term consisting of two words in general usage.
...In short, Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CIALIS trademark.”
The domain names in this case are similar to the Complainant’s trademark because they each use the precise trademark name which has no general meaning and a composite word consisting of two generic words in common usage. ...
2006-03-15 - Case Details
Complainant
5.1 Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark in which Complainant has rights, the disputed domain name incorporating the entirety of the mark. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar (Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy)
6.4 The disputed domain name differs from Complainant’s trademark by
the addition of the words “diet” and “combat”, as well
as having the “.com” suffix. ...
2006-04-25 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(i) Identical or confusingly similar
Complainant claims the Domain Name is confusingly similar to, tarnishes and dilutes Complainant’s
CHEMOURS trademarks. ...page 5
Accordingly, Complainant requests that this Panel transfer the confusingly similar Domain Name to
Complainant so that Complainant can make legitimate use of it.
B. Respondent
(i) Identical or confusingly similar
Respondent contends that although the Domain Name contains Complainant’s CHEMOURS mark in its
entirety and the word “employees,” the Domain Name will not cause confusion and should not be considered
confusingly similar. ...
2022-11-03 - Case Details
The Complainant alleges that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its CHATROULETTE trademark, which he owns by virtue of trademark and service mark registrations in several jurisdictions. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under the first UDRP element, the Complainant is required to prove that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2017-10-12 - Case Details
This suggests that Respondent intended the Domain Names to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark as a means of furthering consumer confusion. As a result, Respondent’s use of these Domain Names to resolve to websites where Respondent seeks to impersonate Complainant and/or sell competing goods is further evidence that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated that it has well-established rights in its ALL-CLAD trademarks, both through registration and widespread use. ...
2021-05-20 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element, Complainant must have trade or service mark rights and the disputed domain name must be identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trade or service mark.
...Complainant contends, inter alia, that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its well-known and famous L’Oreal Mark in which Complainant has rights because “the incorporation of a well-known trademark in its entirety [within the disputed domain name] may be sufficient to establish that the [disputed] domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s [L’Oréal Mark]”.
...
2020-04-01 - Case Details
AAIM,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0403.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy the Complainant must establish rights in a trademark and secondly that the domain names in dispute are confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
.../Keyward Marketing, Inc. registered the domain names and among others which were found to be confusingly similar to complainant’s trademarks SAOFI-AVENTIS and AVENTIS. The registration of domain names identical or confusingly similar to well-known trademarks by a person with no connection to that trademark amounts to “opportunistic bad faith” (see Expedia, Inc. v. ...
2008-01-24 - Case Details
Therefore, the Panel is of the opinion that applying these
principles to this case, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark.
Therefore, the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is met.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-08-12 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainants’ contentions can be summarized as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainants contend that the Disputed Domain Name merely replaces the letter "M" in the LOMBARD trademark with letter combination ''RN", which in the domain name will show as "lornbard" instead of "lombard". ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trademark LOMBARD ODIER & CIE. ...
2021-02-18 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In order for the Complainant to successfully argue that the disputed domain name must be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant, the domain name must be identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights cf. ...The addition of “www” does not prevent the domain name, being confusingly similar to the BHP BILLITON trademark. Omitting the full stop when entering the URL “www.bhpbilliton.com” does not prevent the domain name from being confusingly similar to the trade mark.
...
2010-01-29 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name combines a geographical indication
and the English translation of Complainant’s trademark ALLIANZ. ...Respondent, to this effect, used a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALLIANZ trademark. In addition, he placed a link “powered by Allianz” leading to Complainant’s official website. ...
2006-05-15 - Case Details
c) Complainant claims the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. Complainant alleges the disputed domain name includes the entire mark, and adds the generic words “special” and “offers.” ...This test does not question whether the goods or services offered under the mark are similar or different from those offered at the site to which the domain resolves. See Id. (“The use to which the site is put has no bearing upon the issue whether the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark”).
...
2014-01-28 - Case Details
The addition of the TLD “.com” is irrelevant in determining whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar. See, Research in Motion Limited v thamer Ahmed Alfarshooti,
WIPO Case No. D2012-1146; WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.
...It is generally regarded as prima facie evidence of no rights or legitimate interests if a complainant shows that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark, that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and that a complainant has not authorized the respondent to use its mark (or an expression which is confusingly similar to its mark), whether in the disputed domain name or otherwise. ...
2021-08-24 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Where a domain name incorporates the complainant’s mark in its entirety, the domain name is confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark, despite the addition of other words in the domain name and despite the fact that common words may be appended or common words inserted therein. ...Complainant sent Respondent a series of letters, requesting that Respondent cease and desist the use of the disputed domain name, as the disputed domain name was confusingly similar to Complainant’s REED SMITH mark. Respondent failed to reply to any of these demand letters. ...
2015-02-24 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC, in which it has rights. ...Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has established that it has rights in its trademark SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC. ...
2016-03-10 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant does have registered trademark rights in the mark BETVICTOR by virtue of the trademark registrations listed in paragraph 4 of this decision.
...The Panel finds that the Respondent registered a confusingly similar domain name to interfere with the Complainant’s business. The Panel finds that the Respondent has therefore registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...
2017-05-17 - Case Details