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
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SOLVAY mark. The disputed domain
name is a typical case of the practice of “typosquatting” which intends to create domain names that are
confusingly similar to the relevant mark by changing or adding letters to a trademark.
...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. ...
2022-03-29 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SUPERRARE 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. ...
2022-05-05 - 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
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
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 submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its LPL and LPL FINANCIAL
trademarks, as it comprises them in their entirety – in particular the LPL trademark as the leading element of
the disputed domain name – and differing from the LPL FINANCIAL trademark solely by the addition of the
letter “s”. ...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 LPL and LPL FINANCIAL
trademarks in which Complainant has rights.
...
2022-10-11 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant owns Australian trademark registrations consisting of or containing the
term “Azure Capital”. ...The registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a widely-
known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. ...
2022-10-11 - 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.
...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
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
The Respondent acted with opportunistic bad faith by registering a domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainants’ well-recognized trademark. The Respondent’s lack of legitimate interests in the disputed domain name by itself also indicates bad faith. ...Therefore, the Panel has decided that the language of the proceeding shall be English and shall proceed with a decision in English.
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under the first element of the Policy, a complainant must prove that a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights (paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).
...
2020-05-18 - 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 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. ...
2020-05-12 - 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
As such, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademark.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark or service mark and, if so, the Domain Name must be shown to be identical or confusingly similar to that mark.
...
2021-01-13 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant, under the first requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, needs to establish that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark in which it has rights.
...As regards the trademark CVS, the Panel finds that it is confusingly similar to the disputed domain name, as the trademark is entirely included in the disputed domain name. ...
2020-11-13 - 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 IBM Mark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant.
...
2021-02-02 - 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. ...D2012-0182. Thus, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s IBM Mark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant.
...
2021-02-02 - 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