A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through registration and use. The evidence clearly establishes the Tullamore Dew brand and the Trade Mark as being well known.
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. UDRP panels have consistently held that domain names are 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. ...
2010-08-04 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant's trade mark rights in the trade mark RAPID SHARE is established for purposes of these proceeding by the Complainant's trade mark registrations. ...Further, the use of a logo on the Respondent's website which is confusingly similar to the Complainant's logo further corroborates the finding of bad faith (see eBay Inc v David Sach,
WIPO Case No. ...
2010-07-09 - Case Details
Complainant
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks in which it has rights. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The panel accepts the submissions of the Complainant that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark CDISCOUNT, in which the Complainant has rights. ...
2013-05-08 - Case Details
See paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established its rights in the mark DIOR by virtue of the evidence of its trademark registrations.
...The Panel is of the view that, as a general matter, a domain name is likely to be confusingly similar to a mark if it incorporates the mark or a variation of the mark1.
The Panel finds that Complainant has established that the domain name is confusingly similar to its DIOR mark. ...
2013-04-05 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the FINCH PAPER Mark by virtue of its U.S. trademark
registration cited above.
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s FINCH PAPER Mark because: Complainant’s
Mark is clearly recognizable within the Domain Name; the Top-Level Domain is generally not determinative
in establishing whether the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark; and adding an
additional letter “i” to the Mark does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity with Complainant’s Mark.
...
2023-10-05 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant clearly owns rights in its EQUINOR trademark, established through long-term use and its
portfolio of registrations across Europe and internationally where it carries on its business. ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known
registered trademark. The disputed domain name includes the entirety of the distinctive EQUINOR mark
with the addition of various terms. ...
2023-05-05 - Case Details
The Complainant is of the opinion that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its ALSTOM
trademark.
The Complainant further argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the
disputed domain name.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-05-15 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it is the owner of registered trademark rights in the mark EQUINOR.
...Complainant
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-03-27 - Case Details
The Panel accordingly finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to marks in which the Complainant has rights, for the purpose of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...In this case, the Panel has already found that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks. As also found above, the Respondent has no legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...
2018-05-15 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel notes that the Complainant is a subsidiary of Pfizer Inc, and that according to the Complaint the Complainant is a successor-in-interest to Pfizer’s rights in the VIAGRA trademark.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark as the disputed domain name incorporates the entire VIAGRA trademark. ...
2020-08-06 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar and nearly identical to its FRANKLIN TEMPLETON trademark, as it contains the latter in its entirety with the mere addition of the acronym “fx” at the end. ...Further, according to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to submit a Response as it considers appropriate.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the FRANKLIN TEMPLETON trademark in which Complainant has rights.
...
2020-09-07 - Case Details
The Complainant argues that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its well-known PREMIER LEAGUE trademark because the Domain Name includes the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To succeed under the first UDRP element, the Complainant is required to prove that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2019-10-08 - Case Details
Complainant
The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is virtually identical and thus confusingly similar to Complainant's PRINCIPAL marks. ...UDRP panels have repeatedly held that typosquatted domain names such as this, are confusingly similar for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
In view of the foregoing, Complainant submits that Respondent's domain name is identical or confusingly similar to trademarks in which it has rights as required under the Policy para 4(a)(i).
...
2009-02-27 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
A. Complainants
(a) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainants contend that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainants' trademark BONAFONT.
...Accordingly, the Complainants contend that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainants' trademark.
(b) Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainants contend that the Respondent cannot demonstrate or establish any legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. ...
2010-01-28 - Case Details
Those are:
– the respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
– the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
– the respondent’s domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...The Panel thus finds that the Complainants have established that the domain names are confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainants have rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The business of offering targeted advertising searches may be a legitimate business in certain circumstances. ...
2008-05-20 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
A.1 Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant submits that it has rights in the trademark SILVERCROSS which is registered in many countries throughout the world in the name of Complainant’s parent company and exclusively licensed to Complainant. ...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 name in dispute is confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2007-02-02 - Case Details
This Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is substantially identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s VALIUM word mark because it fully incorporates that mark. See PepsiCo, Inc. v. ...D2001-1184 (use of short phrases with widely-known mark still found confusingly similar to that mark).
For these reasons, the Panel concludes that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the VALIUM mark, a widely-known trademark in which Complainant has rights.
...
2007-09-05 - Case Details
Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PREMARIN mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.
3. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established rights in the PREMARIN mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO and trademark authorities worldwide. ...
2006-04-04 - Case Details
D2000-1214 (November 26, 2000) (finding that the domain name
is confusingly similar to the complainant’s THE BODY SHOP trademark.)
The Panel finds that Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
...Forum March 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent registered and used a domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to attract users to a website sponsored by the respondent.)
...
2006-06-20 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element the Complainant must have trade or service mark rights and the Domain Name must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade or service mark.
...D2000-0474 (August 21, 2000) (finding the disputed domain names confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark and that Respondent’s use of the domain names to sell competing goods was illegitimate and not a bona fide offering of goods).”
...
2018-04-03 - Case Details