The Complainant cites in support WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 1.9: “[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.”
The Complainant also submits that the Disputed Domain Name must be considered confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ARCELORMITTAL trademark, in that it is similar to that trademark in both sight and sound.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has established registered rights in its trademark ARCELORMITTAL. ...
2021-03-29 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant must establish that it 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.
...The Respondent has registered the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known trademark. UDRP panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. ...
2021-05-25 - Case Details
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. ...First, the registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a trademark by an entity that has no
relationship to that mark may be sufficient evidence of opportunistic bad faith. ...
2023-03-16 - Case Details
D2005-0652 (observing that “a domain name is ‘identical or confusingly similar’ to a trademark for purposes of the Policy when the domain name includes the trademark, or confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name”). ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy have been satisfied.
...
2012-02-07 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends that The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark as the addition of a plural ending is merely a slight variation or misspelling of The Trade Mark.
...D2011-0843 (finding clear case of typo-squatting: confusingly similar to EXTENDED STAY AMERICA mark); Apple Inc. v. Private Whois Service,
WIPO Case No. D2011-0929 ( confusing similar to IPOD).
...
2013-02-25 - 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 Complainant has rights.
...The result is that the Complainant has shown that the above disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant had shown that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2010-05-05 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant submits sufficient evidence for its registered trademarks in the UK. ...It is an accepted principle that gTLDs in this case “.org”, are to be typically disregarded in the consideration
of the issue of whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a Complainant’s trademark.
Disregarding the gTLD “.org”, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s trademarks.
...
2023-09-22 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has shown rights regarding a trademark or service mark for the purpose of the Policy.
...The Panel finds that the Respondent registered the confusingly similar Disputed Domain Name long after the
Complainant established its rights in its LOUIS VUITTON marks. ...
2024-10-08 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant makes the following submissions:
Identical or confusingly similar
The Disputed Domain Names are identical and/or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. ...The Panel considers that it would be procedurally efficient and fair to the Parties to consolidate the proceedings in these circumstances.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. ...
2018-09-14 - Case Details
The fact that presently the website is suspended does not cure such bad faith use.
The confusingly similar nature of the Domain Name (including use of the word “global”) demonstrates lack of good faith.
...The only real issue therefore is whether the word “global” which follows it, renders the Domain Name something other than confusingly similar (to the “MIGROS” trademark). In the Panel’s view, it does not.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the “MIGROS” trademark for the purposes of the Policy and thus paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been established.
...
2019-06-06 - 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 trademark, VEOLIA, 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.
...
2019-09-27 - Case Details
Identity or Confusing Similarity
Complainant further contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the IDENTITY GUARD Mark pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i), because the Domain Name wholly incorporates the IDENTITY GUARD Mark with the addition of the generic term “shop.”
Respondent has not contested the assertions by Complaint that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the IDENTITY GUARD Mark.
As numerous courts and 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 complainant's registered mark. ...
2009-06-05 - Case Details
The Respondent, having failed to respond in these proceedings is in default, and the Panel shall draw appropriate inferences therefrom.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant must demonstrate that it has trademark rights and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.
...Therefore, the use of the gTLD “info” in the disputed domain name is not germane to the determination of whether that domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered mark.
In the light of the foregoing, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered mark and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2009-10-12 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that:
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's JACKPOT CITY trade marks
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's JACKPOT CITY trademarks because it wholly incorporates the trade mark and merely adds a generic, descriptive word “csaino” (a misspelling of the word “casino”).
...The onus of proving these elements is on the complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element, the Complainant must have rights in a name, trademark or service mark, and the disputed domain name must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's name, trademark or service mark.
...
2009-01-22 - Case Details
Identity or Confusing Similarity
Complainant further contends that the Domain Names are identical with and confusingly similar to the PACO Mark pursuant to the Policy Paragraph 4(a)(i). Respondents have not contested the assertions by Complaint that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the PACO Mark.
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the PACO Mark pursuant to Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
Rights or Legitimate Interest.
...
2007-02-26 - Case Details
The Complainant points out that previous panels have found that a respondent’s use of a confusingly similar
domain name to misleadingly divert Internet users to unconnected third-party sites constitutes evidence of
bad faith. ...Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is not identical to the PIXABAY trademark of the Complainant. ...
2022-08-22 - Case Details
It is worth noting that the Rules also stipulate that, if a respondent fails to submit a response, the panel shall decide the dispute based upon the complaint, in the absence of exceptional circumstances.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain names , and are, indeed, confusingly similar to the DR. ...D2008-0253,
“a domain name is ‘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. ...
2011-05-18 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainants have to establish two requirements under this paragraph, namely: that they have rights in a trade mark, and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark.
...The focus should therefore be on whether the word “waldene” is confusingly similar to the trade mark WALDEN. The Panel agrees that it is confusingly similar as “waldene” differs with WALDEN only in respect of one letter. ...
2010-08-13 - Case Details
The Complainant makes the following assertions with respect to these elements:
(i) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has rights.
“Mermer” means marble in Turkish. ...Consequently, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is not identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark to which the Complainant has a right. As a result of that there is no need to assess the other requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2004-08-17 - Case Details
The Complainant contends, inter alia, the following facts and arguments:
"The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to trademarks or service marks in which the Complainant has rights. The dominant part of the Domain Name comprises the term ABB, which is identical to the registered trademark ABB, registered by the Complainant as trademarks and Domain Names in numerous countries all over the world. … The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark ABB. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the first requirement that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark ABB, under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2015-01-20 - Case Details