Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark MICHELIN, which, the Complainant notes, previous Panels have decided is well-known or famous. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts and finds that the Complainant has established rights in its trademark MICHELIN. ...
2021-11-04 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
AMERICAN AIRLINES Trademark in which it has established rights. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has properly asserted its rights in the AMERICAN AIRLINES Trademark due to the long
use and registrations worldwide.
...
2023-02-27 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that in a case where a domain name
incorporates the entirety of a well-known trademark in the domain name may be sufficient to establish that
the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CARREFOUR trademark, the
Disputed Domain Name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that trademark.
...The Panel will successively rule on each of these elements.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant satisfactorily established its rights in the CARREFOUR trademark and that the Disputed
Domain name is confusingly similar to the CARREFOUR trademark.
...
2023-02-13 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which it has rights.
...Where the domain name was found confusingly similar to the trademark COSTCO as it did not change the overall impression of the mark); also see Weightwatchers International Inc. v. ...
2011-12-21 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel has no doubt that “DECATHLON” is a term directly connected with the Complainant’s well-known
trademark.
...It is also already well established that the addition of a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) extension such
as “.shop” is typically irrelevant when determining whether a domain name is confusingly similar to a
complainant’s trademark.
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0201.html
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 4
As a result, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademarks, and that the Complainant has satisfied the first element of the Policy.
...
2023-11-16 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(i) Identical or confusingly similar
Complainant states the Domain Name and the brand used on the connected site, “JustVacation!”...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated that it has rights in its JUST VACATIONS trademark through its USPTO
registration of the mark on April 9, 2013. ...
2023-07-21 - 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 KULULA
trademark, 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 relevant UDRP rights in a trademark and the
disputed domain name must be identical or confusingly similar to such trademark.
...
2023-07-19 - Case Details
Thus, the Disputed Domain Name is
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s PSA Mark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the
Complainant.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-05-11 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well-accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-10-16 - Case Details
The Disputed Domain Name is also confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark THE LANCET ONCOLOGY JOURNAL ("The Lancet Oncology Journal trademark"). ...That is a prestigious and widely circulated scientific medical journal.
The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to both these trademarks. Previous 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 trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name" (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2018-06-08 - Case Details
As detailed under the submissions concerning rights below, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the First Complainant’s registered rights and confusingly similar to the Second Complainant’s main business domain name, , which is inter alia used for its corporate email communication with staff, customers and other third parties. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfactorily proven that it has registered trademark rights for TRITON.
...
2019-11-13 - Case Details
First of all, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the AVIVA trademarks, since it strictly reproduces the AVIVA mark in its entirety and simply added to it the descriptive term “share plan”, making the disputed domain name confusingly similar also to its domain name .
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), the Complainant shall prove that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2019-01-03 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is required to establish the two following elements: (1) that it has trademark rights, and, if so, (2) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark(s).
...Considering the requirement that the disputed domain name and the trademark must be confusingly similar, this Panel believes that the expression “hello-dody” is confusingly similar to the trademark HELLOBODY for the purposes of the analysis under the first element.
...
2020-08-05 - 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, DECATHLON,in light of the fact that it wholly incorporates the Complainant’s mark followed by the descriptive word “foot”.
...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.
...
2019-04-25 - Case Details
Complainant
With regard to the first requirement (paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy) that the domain names are identical or confusingly similar to trademarks or service marks in which the Complainant has rights, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain names are identical or at least confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks, and that such incorporation of said trademarks in their entirety should be sufficient to establish this first requirement. ...Accordingly, this domain name can be held to be confusingly similar in this respect too.
In the case of the disputed domain name , “sig” is not a common or generic term. ...
2009-11-30 - Case Details
D2000-1677 (“Coca
Cola” and “cocacoladrinks” held confusingly similar); America
Online. Inc. v. Anson Chan, WIPO Case
No. D2001-0004, citing Sporty’s Farm LLC. v. ...Yeteck Communication, Inc., WIPO
Case No. D2001-0055 (“aolcasino” found confusingly similar to
AOL mark).
Similarly, the deletion of the generic word “company” does not render the domain name less confusingly similar to the Complainant’s JACKSON NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY mark.
...
2007-03-28 - Case Details
Therefore, the Sole Panelist finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the MOBIL TRAVEL GUIDE mark pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
Rights or Legitimate Interest.
...In addition, the Sole Panelist found the Domain Name to be confusingly similar to the MOBIL TRAVEL GUIDE mark. The activities of Respondent show his intent to attract internet users to his website. ...
2001-02-05 - Case Details
D2000-0869 (September 25, 2000) (
confusingly similar to mark ESTEE LAUDER); Nicole Kidman v. John Zuccarini,
d/b/a Cupcake Party, WIPO Case No. D2000-1415
(January 23, 2001) ( confusingly similar to mark NICOLE
KIDMAN).
The Complainant has met the requirement of Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
2. ...
2003-08-14 - Case Details
Gordon disagreed that the disputed
domain name was confusingly similar to the trademark because `in' and 'inn'
are different words with different meanings. ...Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is clearly confusingly similar to the Complainant's
registered trademarks. ...
2004-05-28 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is indisputable that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s T-ONLINEMOBILE trademark. ...The Panel finds that the domain name also is confusingly similar to the T-ONLINE mark.
The third question is if the domain name is confusingly similar to the "T-Mobile" trademark. ...
2003-07-07 - Case Details