Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that English shall be the language of the proceeding.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
UDRP panels have consistently held that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trade mark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...In all the circumstances, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name does not contain the Trade Mark or a confusingly similar approximation of the Trade Mark and therefore it is not identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.
...
2011-02-28 - Case Details
The Complainant argues that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its SAFE SPICE Mark because the Domain Name incorporates, in its entirety, the SAFE SPICE Mark.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the complainant must prove that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights. ...
2011-09-13 - Case Details
As numerous prior UDRP panels have recognized, the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety may be sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered mark. The addition of other generic terms in the domain name does not affect a finding that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered trademark (LEGO Juris A/S v. ...In this case, the Complainant has proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the Respondent has intentionally registered the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks, and intentionally diverted Internet users to websites offering the same or similar products as those offered by the Complainant. ...
2013-01-16 - Case Details
Respondent's domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's PROTEK mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.
3. ...Aamir Siddiqi c/o DotCorner.com, NAF Case No. 721969 (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use by using a domain name that was confusingly similar to the complainant's mark to offer links to third-party websites that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant).
...
2010-05-18 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant sets out that the Disputed Domain Name is nearly identical and confusingly similar to a trademark in which it has rights and notes that it is the proprietor of the registered trademarks set out above and trades as AFTON CHEMICAL, also as set out above.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has established registered rights in its trademark AFTON CHEMICAL. ...
2019-03-21 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has established both registered and common law rights in its trademark MINERVA. ...The Panel also accepts that the addition of a term, such as “foods” or “.com”, is not sufficient to avoid a finding that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark MINERVA.
The Panel accordingly finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark MINERVA, in which it has rights, and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been met.
...
2019-01-11 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant says that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the V.Ships trademark in that it simply omits the period and substitutes a “z” for an “s” which is a minor typographical variation.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the V.Ships trademark. The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to this trademark, being visually and phonetically similar. ...
2018-12-24 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark and, if so, the Domain Name must be shown to be identical or confusingly similar to the trademark.
...In light of the foregoing, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademarks. The Domain Name consists of the elements “novo” and “pate”. The element “novo” is recognizable and confusingly similar to the Trademarks, also in light of the fact that “novo” is the common leading element to all these Trademarks. ...
2020-08-31 - 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. The Panel concludes that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the HALIBNA Mark as set forth below.
It is uncontroverted that the Complainant has established rights in the HALIBNA Mark based on its registered trademarks for the HALIBNA Mark. ...
2021-03-03 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established the fact that it has valid trademark rights for LEGO in several classes.
...The Panel therefore considers the domain name in question to be confusingly similar to the trademark LEGO in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2009-05-29 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In the Panel's view, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark CHI. ...D2007-0392 it was held that the domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant's ALEDA trade mark. Citing Pfizer Inc v. United Pharmacy Ltd;
WIPO Case No. ...
2009-06-24 - Case Details
Further, the addition of the word “sporting” to the Complainant’s HIBBETT Mark does not absolve the Domain Name of its confusingly similar nature. “It is a general rule that likelihood of confusion is not avoided between otherwise confusingly similar marks merely by adding or deleting a house mark or matter that is descriptive or suggestive of the named goods or services.” ...Indeed, because Complainant is engaged in the sale of sporting goods, the addition of the descriptive moniker only adds to the confusingly similar nature of the Domain Name.
Respondent, in defaulting, does not dispute that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the HIBBETT Mark.
...
2006-12-07 - Case Details
Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks BULGARI and BVLGARI, to which the Complainant has established trademark rights through registration.
...As stated above, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks and additionally the goods offered are very similar to the Complainant’s business (namely jewellery). ...
2021-12-07 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainants have rights.
...Indeed, the Respondent's use of the disputed domain name without rights or legitimate interests for promoting similar goods constitutes bad faith on behalf of the Respondent.
The Panel also notes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. ...
2011-11-14 - Case Details
A complainant must prove each of these three elements.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name in issue is clearly very similar to the trademarks of the Complainant. ...Given the foregoing, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names and the Complainant’s mark, when directly compared, are confusingly similar. See Wachovia Corporation v. American Consumers, First,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0150 (, , and confusingly similar to WACHOVIA due to common mistyping on standard ‘qwerty’ keyboard).”
...
2007-10-17 - Case Details
The Panel will therefore deal with each of these requirements in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark GRAINGER. ...Fourthly, the domain name is phonetically identical to the trademark and therefore confusingly similar to it.
It might be said, against the view the Panel has just expressed, that the domain name and the trademark cannot be confusingly similar, as the domain name is preceded by the two additional letters ‘ww’, thereby creating an entirely different word from ‘grainger’.
...
2004-12-09 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is therefore made up of a geographical indicator and word that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. It is thereby confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
...On this test, the Panel has no difficulty in finding “pery” to be confusingly similar to PERRY.
The Panel, however, finds it much more difficult to determine that “pery” is confusingly similar to PERRY ELLIS. ...
2014-07-23 - Case Details
Of most relevance to this matter is the word mark SWAROVSKI, referenced in this decision as the SWAROVSKI Mark.
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SWAROVSKI Mark. Prior 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 trade mark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name". ...Accordingly the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark. Accordingly the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...
2014-06-24 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
5.A Complainant
5.A.1 Identical or Confusingly Similar
5.A.1.1 First, with reference to its U.S. trade mark registration – paragraph 4.A.2 above – Complainant asserts that it has rights in the TINDER Mark.
5.A.1.2 Second, Complainant asserts that each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to that Mark. ...In the circumstances, the Panel finds that all four disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s TINDER trade mark and, accordingly, the Complaint satisfies the second requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2016-09-15 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-06-12 - Case Details