Therefore, the Domain Name is phonetically identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known Trademark.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. ...In light of the foregoing, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademark.
Therefore, the Panel is satisfied that the first element of the Policy is met.
...
2021-03-05 - 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. ...Further, 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 evidence of opportunistic bad faith. ...
2020-08-11 - Case Details
The Respondent’s passive nonuse of the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s famous service mark, constitutes bad faith registration and use under the Policy. ...D2004-0741 (finding to be confusingly similar to the GTA mark).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has succeeded in showing that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2020-04-07 - 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 first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant.
...
2020-01-13 - 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
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 JCDECAUX trademark and that requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2019-11-15 - 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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
In conclusion, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which
Complainant has rights in accordance with 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...
2023-01-19 - Case Details
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 domain name in dispute is identical to or confusingly similar to the trademark in which Complainant has rights.
...The addition of “newscenter” to “mela” does not sufficiently distinguish Respondent’s from the MELALEUCA or MELA marks, and the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered and common law trademarks.
The Panel finds that Complainant has proven that the domain name in dispute is confusingly similar to the registered and common law trademarks in which Complainant has rights.
...
2008-05-22 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(i) Identical or confusingly similar
Complainant states that it is a major actor in the dating business operating a number of related websites. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel must determine whether the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
...
2016-09-22 - 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
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