Indeed, when a domain name incorporates a distinctive
mark in its entirety, it creates sufficient similarity between a mark and a
domain name to render the domain name confusingly similar. EAuto v. Triple
S. Auto Parts, WIPO Case No. D2000-0047
(March 24, 2000). In the present case, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly
similar to the CIALIS mark because it incorporates the CIALIS mark in its entirety.
...For these reasons, the Panel concludes that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the CIALIS mark, a federally-registered trademark in which Complainant has rights.
...
2006-01-23 - Case Details
In many circumstances, registration of multiple domain names that are confusingly
similar to established trademarks is evidence of bad faith. This is true under
both American trademark law, see 15 U.S.C. §1125 (d)(B)(i)(VIII) (registration
“of multiple domain names which the person knows are identical or confusingly
similar to marks of others” is indicia of bad faith), and under the Policy.
...D2000-0012 (February 17, 2000) (respondent held more than 100 domain
names confusingly similar to well-known trademarks); Toyota Motor Sales,
U.S.A., Inc. v. RD Lab, WIPO Case No. ...
2006-01-20 - Case Details
Adding the suffix “.com” does not distinguish a domain name from being confusingly similar to a trademark. Furthermore, incorporating the entirety of a mark into a domain name is sufficient to conclude that a domain name is confusingly similar to the registered mark.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first issue in this matter is whether the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. ...
2006-07-11 - Case Details
Complainant argues that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to his trademarks G-UNIT and G-UNITY.
Complainant informs the Panel that Respondent is not a licensee or authorized user of the trademarks. ...The question then turns to whether “g-unity” is confusingly similar to “G-Unit.” “G-Unit” is distinctive and does not, in itself, have meaning in English. ...
2006-05-31 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations comprising the word RAINBOW.
...Therefore, the domain name must be considered as confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
The “.com” suffix denoting second-level domain status in Respondent’s domain name does not affect the fact that the name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark pursuant to paragraph4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2006-07-04 - Case Details
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. ...Substantive Matters
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Complainant must prove each of the three following elements in respect of the Disputed Domain Name: (i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical to or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in whi...
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel has no doubt that “drinkprimeuae” is a term which is (and which is intended to be) confusingly similar to the term “PRIME”. ...
2022-08-29 - Case Details
The Panel also acknowledges that both Supplemental Filings will formally form part of the record in the dispute.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There are two parts to this inquiry: does the Complainant have trademark rights in a mark and, if so, is the disputed domain name identical or confusingly similar to that mark?
...Thus the issue is whether or not the domain name is confusingly similar to those marks.
The Complainant contends that it is, relying on the cases holding that the addition of a descriptive term to a trademark can never be anything other than confusingly similar to the trademark. ...
2008-09-15 - Case Details
The Respondent argued that those additional letters should not be ignored and that the disputed domain name could not be seen as confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark as a whole.
Whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark is to be judged against the dominant textual elements of a complainant's mark. ...Being identical, it is not also necessary to consider whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar.
The other majority Panelist would however find that the disputed domain name is not identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark. ...
2014-11-14 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Complainant submits, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SELECT EQUITY marks.
Secondly, the Complainant contends, the transposed letters “u” and “i” are next to one another on English-language keyboards and this constitutes “typosquatting” and UDRP panels routinely hold that domain names created via typosquatting are confusingly similar to a complainant’s marks.
...The Panel accepts that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SELECT EQUITY marks and refers to Electronic Arts Inc. v. John Zuccarini,
WIPO Case No. ...
2017-07-25 - Case Details
D2011-0274 ( confusingly similar to ALLEGRA trademark); and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Mike Jameson Luige,
WIPO Case No. D2011-0380 ( confusingly similar to VALIUM trademark).)
In Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Limited v. Dejan Macesic,
WIPO Case No. ...
2011-12-29 - Case Details
As the Respondent did not file a Response or otherwise reply to the Complainant’s contentions, the Panel shall decide the complaint on the basis of the Complainant’s submissions and such inferences that can be reasonably drawn from the failure to submit a Response as the Panel considers applicable (Rules, paragraph 14(b)).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complaint submits that the disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the names and trademarks in which the Complainant has extensive rights. ...Whether a domain name which incorporates a complainant’s trademark together with a prefix or suffix is confusingly similar to the trade mark has been considered in a number of UDRP decisions. It has been held that a domain name consisting of the complainant’s trademark and ending with the “.com” gTLD is confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark (see Sanofi-Aventis v. ...
2010-05-29 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
A.1. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant is the owner of hundreds of registered trademarks located in over one hundred countries throughout the world for the trademark MERCK.
...AAIM,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0403.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant must establish rights in a trademark and secondly that the disputed domain name is identical to or confusingly similar to the trademark in which Complainant has rights.
...
2013-09-03 - Case Details
Dotsan, NAF Claim No. FA109715 (finding confusingly similar to the HARRAH'S mark and stating that “an obvious misspelling of the famous and distinct HARRAH'S mark does not defeat a confusingly similar claim”); Scholastic Inc. v. ...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 identical to or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2009-09-22 - Case Details
The Complainant notes that the disputed domain names of and are confusingly similar to the Complainant's BLUEARC trademark. The Complainant contends that they have used BLUEARC since 2001 and additionally that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar in terms of sound, appearance and commercial impression to BLUEARC. ...Stefan Tinculescu,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0465.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must first evidence that and are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. ...
2010-04-09 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complaint shows that Complainant has valid and
well-established exclusive rights in its WEATHER SHIELD marks. ...The addition of descriptive or non-distinctive terms in the
domain name does not affect a finding that a domain name is confusingly similar
to a complainant’s registered trademark.
The Panel finds that Respondent’s
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WEATHER SHIELD marks.
...
2007-03-20 - Case Details
D2002-0616, the then Panel found that the disputed domain name was not identical or confusingly similar to the then complainant’s EINSTEIN mark.
Although that finding was not determinative in that case, this Panel takes a similar approach to whether the RAUSING mark is confusingly similar to the disputed domain name . ...Neither does the RAUSING mark appear to the Panel to be confusingly similar to the disputed domain name either phonetically, visually, or in overall impression.
...
2008-04-16 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first requirement under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy stipulates the Complainant has to establish the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark in which it has rights.
...Such variants of a trademark are held to be "typosquatting" and normally will be found to be confusingly similar to the trademark. The Panel has no hesitation in finding the disputed domain name is a classic case of typosquatting and is confusingly similar to the Complainant's NAUKRI and NAUKRI.COM trademarks.
...
2014-11-28 - Case Details
In addition to the above, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a combination of the trademarks SVEA and EXCHANGE FINANS, in which the Complainants have rights. ...Since the disputed domain name incorporates the SVEA trademark in its entirety with the addition of the descriptive term "exchange", the disputed domain name has to be considered confusingly similar to all SVEA trademarks. Additionally, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name is also confusingly similar to the Complainant 2's company name "Svea Exchange AB".
...
2014-11-13 - Case Details
Complainant
Firstly, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark ALSTOM. The element “alston” is confusingly similar to the trademark ALSTOM, particularly when written in lowercase since the letter “n” is visually barely distinguishable from the letter “m”. ...Tulip Trading Company,
WIPO Case No. D2015-1520 for a similar case where a “t” had been substituted by an “r”).
Furthermore, the addition of the term “group” to the confusingly similar element “alston” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9).
...
2022-02-18 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its EDRINGTON
trademark, notably because the disputed domain name differs only by the replacement of the letter “g” with
the visually similar letter “q”. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under the first element, the Complainant must establish that the disputed domain name is identical with, or
confusingly similar to, the Complainant’s trademark rights.
...
2023-02-28 - Case Details