A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant owns trademark registrations for its BEIN trademark in numerous
jurisdictions.
...The ccTLD “.me” is disregarded when considering whether the respective disputed domain name is
confusingly similar to the earlier trademarks.
For these reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s mark BEIN.
...
2022-11-15 - Case Details
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.
...Factual Background
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
7. Decision...
2022-12-05 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant contends the disputed domain names registered by Respondent are confusingly similar to trademarks in which Complainant has rights. ...The use of the disputed domain names, confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark, for advertising and linking to other websites, presumably in exchange for pay- per-click revenue, is itself evidence of bad faith.
...
2011-10-04 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it owns rights in the trademark BARBOUR. There is much support in precedent interpreting the Policy for the proposition that the pairing of a distinctive trademark with less distinctive terms is confusingly similar to the distinctive trademark. ...D2001-0032 ( and confusingly similar to LEXUS). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name, which combines the BARBOUR trademark with the less distinctive terms “cheap,” “jackets” and “women,” is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BARBOUR trademark.
...
2013-09-23 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant does have registered trademark rights in the mark DEGUSSA by virtue of its German Trademark Registration No. 30 2009 062828; International Trademark Registration No. 431497A; Community Trademark Nos. 9122649, and 87490012.
...The Panel finds that the use of a domain name confusingly similar to a trademark in this manner is not evidence of a bona fide offering of goods and services.
...
2012-11-26 - Case Details
In particular, the Complainant claims that:
a) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the above-referenced trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This first element requires the Complainant to demonstrate that (i) it has trademark rights and (ii) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2013-10-17 - Case Details
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well established that where a domain name consists of a misspelling of a trade mark such that the mark
is recognisable, as in this case, the domain name is confusingly similar. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-05-24 - Case Details
D2019-2273 (panel found disputed domain name that differed from the complainant’s mark
by only one missing letter to be confusingly similar).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied this first element under the Policy.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-11-21 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's JLL mark, which is registered and used in a number of jurisdictions throughout the world, including the United States and Latin America.
...Respondent's registration and non-use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark support Complainant's assertion of bad faith registration and use.
...
2018-07-13 - Case Details
The customer, AB Corepixel, became suspicious and did not transfer any money, and then it brought the fraudulent activity to the Complainant’s attention.
The Complainant submits that this use of a confusingly similar domain name for fraudulent purposes is not bona fide use under the Policy.
Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant contends that the registration and use of a confusingly similar domain name for the purposes of engaging in a fraudulent scheme as described above is evidence of bad faith under the Policy.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark. ...
2018-04-30 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights in the WAL-MART trademark, and the related service mark WAL-MART MUSIC DOWNLOADS. ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly
similar to the famous WAL-MART trademark, and the derivative mark WAL-MART MUSIC
DOWNLOADS. ...
2004-10-01 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Where a domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety, the domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, despite the addition of other words in the domain name and despite the fact that a common word may be appended or a common word inserted therein. ...Javier Llorens,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1319 ( found confusingly similar to CASINO DE MONTE CARLO mark). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the domain name at issue is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered service mark.
...
2008-08-07 - Case Details
Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WAL-MART mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.
3. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant clearly has rights in the trademark WAL-MART, which Respondent
has not contested. ...
2006-06-22 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided copies of its Christie's trademark registrations from the online service of the United States Patent and Trademark Office's U.S. ...The disputed domain name, "christiesauction.com", is certainly confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark since it merely adds the word "auction" used in its generic sense. ...
2001-03-09 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant established that it has made extensive use of the VITAMIN WORLD trademark registrations obtained in the United States and throughout the world. ...Golden State Overnight,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0063 ( is confusingly similar to the CALIFORNIA OVERNIGHT mark); Dow Jones & Company, Inc. & Dow Jones LP v. T.S.E. ...
2016-03-29 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
As set forth in section 1.7 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third
Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) the standing test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively
straightforward comparison between the trademark and the disputed domain name to determine whether the
disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the trademark. ...As indicated in section 6.A above, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the Complainant’s
trademark TRITON CAPITAL MARKETS and the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in any
way that may be considered fair use.
...
2023-03-28 - Case Details
The third element a complainant must establish
is that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establish 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...
2022-03-03 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark and, second, is the Disputed Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. ...Thus, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s LITASCO Mark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant.
...
2021-08-19 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark and, second, is the Disputed Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. ...Thus, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s NRJ Mark.
Accordingly, the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant.
...
2021-11-29 - Case Details
Michael
Robertson, WIPO Case No. D2000-0009).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel agrees with Complainant’s allegation that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s SMITHFIELD mark.
...See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7 (where a domain name incorporates the entirety
of a trademark, the domain name will normally be considered by UDRP panels to be confusingly similar).
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark and
concludes that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is established.
...
2023-03-10 - Case Details