A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant’s trade mark registrations for VIBRAM and FIVEFINGERS establish the Complainant’s trade mark rights. ...A domain name which incorporates two trade marks of a complainant is by extension of this principle also confusingly similar to the two trade marks (see Vibram S.p.A. v. Peng Zhen, supra; Intuit Inc. v. xiejian,
WIPO Case No. ...
2010-08-25 - Case Details
Having considered the Complaint and the available evidence, the Panel finds the following:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry – a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trade mark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trade mark.
...The Panel finds the disputed domain names to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy with respect to both disputed domain names.
...
2013-07-01 - Case Details
The Complainant has a wide range of registered trade marks HERBALIFE.
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the HERBALIFE trade mark. Previous 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” (see Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...Accordingly the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark. Accordingly the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...
2013-06-28 - Case Details
The Complainant notes that the disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s DAVID YURMAN trademark as the dominant part of the disputed domain name and states that this renders it confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. The Complainant submits that the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety in a domain name is sufficient to establish that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the registered trademark. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel notes that the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety together with the generic word “outlet”. ...
2013-12-05 - Case Details
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2001/d2001-1425.html
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0009.html
page 3
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel agrees with Complainant’s allegation that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s WALGREENS marks.
...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark and
concludes that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is established.
...
2023-11-28 - Case Details
The third element a 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 names are
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...
2023-10-04 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the QATARENERGY trademark, as it is entirely
incorporated in 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...
2023-08-07 - Case Details
In considering these elements, paragraph 15(a) of the Rules
provides that the Panel shall decide the Complaint on the basis of statements and documents submitted and
in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any other rules or principles of law that the Panel seems
applicable.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In the present case, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s registered trademark BIOMERIEUX.
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first requirement that the disputed domain
name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark, under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
B. ...
2023-08-09 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights over the trademark KUESKI CASH based on the
trademark registrations cited under section 4 above.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark KUESKI CASH as it
reproduces the trademark in its entirety swapping only over the letters “e” and “u” of the first term “kueski”.
...
2023-05-23 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the PHOENIX CONTACT trademark. The Panel finds the Disputed Domain
Name is confusingly similar to this trademark. 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. ...
2023-05-08 - Case Details
Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark of the
Complainant and that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-05-05 - Case Details
The Panel finds the CORNING mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the
disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0,
section 1.7. Additionally, panels have consistently found that a domain name consisting of a misspelling of
the complainant’s trademark (i.e. typosquatting) is considered confusingly similar to the complainant’s 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...
2024-02-27 - Case Details
Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s trademark were registered in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-01-26 - 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
Given the above, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered trademark of the Complainant.
...
2024-10-08 - Case Details
Considering these
requirements, the Panel rules as follows.
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 Panel holds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks
GEB and TGI. The Respondent’s incorporation of the Complainant’s trademarks in full and combined in
the disputed domain name is evidence that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s marks.
...
2024-10-07 - Case Details
The only issue therefore is whether the addition of “-go”, renders the Domain Name something other than confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BLACKBERRY trademark. Clearly it does not and hence the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the BLACKBERRY trademark for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...Here, however, the Respondent is not known by the Domain Name and given the nature of the (confusingly similar) website to which the Domain Name resolves, the Panel would not accept that there is legitimate noncommercial or fair use. ...
2018-05-30 - 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.
...It is well established that a domain name that wholly incorporates a trademark is confusingly similar to that trademark for purposes of the Policy. See Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2018-07-10 - Case Details
The Respondent’s website also advertises the Respondent’s technical services for installation and use of the unauthorized, counterfeit software.
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BMW mark
The Domain Name is confusingly similar because it contains the BMW mark in its entirety and also because it contains the Complainant’s mark combined with the generic or descriptive term “coding”, such term having an obvious connection to the coding or programming software offered by the Complainant through its diagnostic systems under its BMW mark.
...The only real issue therefore is whether the word “coding” which follows it, renders the Domain Name something other than confusingly similar (to the BMW mark). In the Panel’s view, it does not.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the BMW mark for the purposes of the Policy and thus paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been established.
...
2018-12-19 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the PROSPER trademark for the purposes of the Policy and thus paragraph 4(a)(i) thereof has been established.
...However, it is difficult to accept, given the nature of the website to which the confusingly similar Domain Name resolves, that there could be a bona fide offering of goods or services without clear justification for such offering. ...
2019-03-22 - Case Details
In this frame, the Complainant underlines that panels in several UDRP decisions considered that the incorporation of a well-known trademark in its entirety may be sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
Based on the above, the Complainant concludes that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s earlier trademarks.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant showed that it has trademark rights in CARREFOUR through several international registrations designating many countries notably within the European Union. ...
2020-07-15 - Case Details