The third element the 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...
2022-07-08 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name consists of the registered trademark INSTAGRAM
and the terms “secure” and “help”. ...Harold Jean-Louis, Harold Jean-Louis, Inc.
Case No. D2023-0334
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith...
2023-03-31 - 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, whether the Complainant has rights in a relevant trademark and,
second, whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
...The
Respondent registered the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademark, CHAMPIONX. The Respondent inserted one more letter “i” to create the disputed domain name.
...
2023-02-06 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element that the Complainant must establish is that the disputed domain name is identical with, or
confusingly similar to, the Complainant’s trademark rights.
...The domain name at issue here is . It is this which must be at least confusingly similar to
the Complainant’s trademarks.
Disregarding the “.com” gTLD, the disputed domain name consists of “visasdept”. ...
2023-01-10 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant makes the following contentions.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
In creating the Disputed Domain Name, the Respondent incorporates the Trade Mark with the descriptive term “cloud”. ...However, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s lack of a Response.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2021-03-19 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the SEALED AIR trademark. The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to this trademark. ...The Panel agrees in this regard with the approach set out in WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9, namely:
“Is a domain name consisting of a misspelling of the complainant’s trademark (i.e., typosquatting) confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark?
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.”
...
2021-06-02 - 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 GEICO Mark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant.
...
2021-11-02 - 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 IVECO Mark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant.
...
2021-08-25 - 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 FINANCO Mark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant.
...
2021-12-09 - 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 LEGO Mark.
Accordingly, the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant.
...
2021-11-05 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, there are two requirements which the Complainant must establish, first that it has rights in a trademark or service mark, and second that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and that requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2022-01-06 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the CORYXKENSHIN registered trademark.
The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the CORYXKENSHIN registered trademark. It is well established that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) (in this case “.com”) does not generally affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar (see for example Rollerblade, Inc. v. ...
2022-01-13 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, there are two requirements which the Complainant must establish, first
that it has rights in a trademark or service mark, and second that the disputed domain name is identical or
confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-03-07 - Case Details
Considering the above the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademark, therefore, the Complainant has established its case under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
According to section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 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. ...
2023-02-17 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has proved that the disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the trademarks of the Complainant.
...D2005-0488, wherein the panel found that “when a domain name incorporates a complainant’s mark in its entirety, it is confusingly similar to that mark despite the addition of other words”). Additionally the Panel notes in this case, any added German words or phrases do not cure this illegitimate use of the Complainant’s mark CIALIS, neither are they sufficient to establish that the disputed Domain Names are not confusingly similar to the mark CIALIS.
...
2011-06-21 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark SWAROVSKI, being a combination of the generic words “jewelry” and “outlet” with the Complainant’s trademark SWAROVSKI.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant is the owner of the trademark SWAROVSKI both by registration and acquired reputation and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark SWAROVSKI.
...
2013-06-20 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainants
1. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant owns registrations for, and uses its LECLERC trademark in connection with, a chain of super- and hypermarket stores. ...See Rules, paragraph 14(b).
1. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established its rights in the mark LECLERC by virtue of the evidence of its trademark registrations.
...
2013-01-15 - Case Details
Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AAA mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
3. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the AAA mark for purposes of Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i) through its trademark registrations. ...
2012-02-24 - Case Details
In particular, in its Complaint filed on December 2, 2011, the Complainant asserts that:
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar or identical to the SAMSUNG trademark in light of the fact that it wholly incorporates the Complainant’s registered trademark. ...The Respondent has failed to file any reply in these proceedings and is therefore in default and the Panel shall draw appropriate inferences therefrom.
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.
...
2012-02-02 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain names consist of the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety together with the words “franchisee”, “incfranchise” and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) extension “.com”. With respect to the gTLD extension “.com” the general rule is that it can be disregarded when considering whether a trademark is identical or confusingly similar to a domain name.
It has been commonly held in previous UDRP cases that incorporating a trademark in its entirety is typically sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark (see Oakley, Inc. v. ...
2014-02-11 - Case Details