The Respondent has failed to file a response in these proceedings and is therefore in default and the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the available evidence.
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.
...In light of the foregoing, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2013-06-19 - Case Details
Complainant asserts the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the FIDELITY Marks. Complainant asserts the only distinctive element in the disputed domain name is “FIDEL” which is clearly recognizable and similar to the full FIDELITY trademark. ...In Knot We Trust LTD,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0340.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Ownership of a trademark registration is generally sufficient evidence that a complainant has the requisite rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...
2019-08-16 - 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
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-02-16 - 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
Therefore, the Sole Panelist finds that Complainant, for purposes of this proceeding, has enforceable rights in the trademark.
Confusingly Similar
Complainant further contends that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the trademark pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
...The Sole Panelist further notes that the Respondent has failed to contest the assertion that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the trademarks pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
Therefore, the Sole Panelist finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the LIPITOR and ZOLOFT marks pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2001-06-25 - Case Details
The combination of the “QS” mark, the “ISO” mark and “9000”, is confusingly similar to ISO’s trademark, and remarkably similar to the well known ISO series of standards “ISO 9000” (which itself forms part of the Automotive Industry Action Group’s standard QS 9000, the abbreviation “qs” is used for “quality system”).
...D2000-1469 where the Panel found the use of the “PGA”
acronym with OPEN to be blatantly confusingly similar to the PGA trademark.
In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proved that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks of the Complainant according to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
6.2. ...
2004-07-27 - Case Details
Due to the extensive use and registration of the MONTBLANC marks around the world, the MONTBLANC marks have become famous under the laws of the United States and China.
The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to MONTBLANC marks because they fully incorporate the MONTBLANC marks. Also, they are confusingly similar because they consist of the MONTBLANC marks, with the inclusion of the generic industry word “pens”, which Complainant is in the business of selling, and the letters “a”, “b”, “c” or “d”.
...Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that a domain name may be identical or confusingly similar to a trademark 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” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2013-08-16 - Case Details
Thus, the protection for LEGO goes beyond toys and goods similar to toys.
According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the LEGO trademark of the Complainant. ...In the present case, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known LEGO trademark, and Internet users may mistakenly believe that it is somehow connected to or endorsed by the Complainant. ...
2013-02-12 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is undisputed that Complainant has established rights in its ROSS-SIMONS mark and domain name.
...D2001-1035 (October 24, 2001) (finding
confusingly similar to RED BULL); Playboy Enterprises Int'l,
Inc. v. SAND Web Names For Sale, WIPO
Case No. ...
2004-05-05 - Case Details
Furthermore, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain names are also confusingly similar to its domain names and , which heightens confusion.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar as it is simply the English translation of Kapadokya, the Panel is of the opinion that there is a likelihood of confusion based on the overall visual and phonetic similarities between the trademark and the disputed domain and it is therefore confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2009-08-06 - Case Details
Therefore, the Panel concludes that the name is at least confusingly similar to the mark. See Citigroup Inc., Citicorp v. Phayze, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0430 (where the panel held to be confusingly similar to the mark CITIBANK.); Referral Experts LLC v. ...D2007-0436 (finding that the domain name, , is confusingly similar to the mark, LOOKING YOUR BEST.COM.).
As a result, the Panel rules that the Complainant has succeeded in proving that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a service mark in which it has rights, per the requirements of Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2008-01-03 - Case Details
D2000-1677 (“Coca Cola” and “cocacoladrinks” held confusingly similar); America Online, Inc. v. Anson Chan,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0004, citing Sporty’s Farm LLC. v. ...Martin Franze, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0299 ( confusingly similar to VERISIGN marks); VeriSign, Inc. v. Nandini Tandon,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1216 ( and confusingly similar to VERISIGN marks). ...
2007-06-28 - Case Details
In particular, in its Complaint filed on November 21, 2012, 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 Complainant’s registered AAA Marks, in light of the fact that it wholly incorporates the Complainant’s Marks. ...The Respondent has failed to file a formal response in these proceedings and is therefore in default and the Panel may 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.
...
2013-02-07 - Case Details
Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the REVLON mark. The Disputed Domain Name, however, is not identical to the REVLON mark. ...This Panel agrees that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the REVLON mark. Several previous UDRP panels have held that incorporating a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. ...
2012-02-01 - Case Details
These elements are discussed as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is nearly identical and is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark. ...D2001-0063 (use of confusingly similar domain name by competitor of Complainant constituted bad faith registration and use).
...
2012-01-26 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
A.1 Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is essentially identical to Complainant's NASDAQ trademark and is confusingly similar (visually and phonetically). ...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.
...
2010-04-09 - Case Details
This suggests that Respondent intended the Domain Name to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark as a means of furthering consumer confusion and profiting from the Domain Name. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that 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.
...
2018-08-09 - Case Details
D2000‑0127, and that “Panelists have consistently held that the mere addition of descriptive wording to well‑known marks or confusingly similar derivatives thereof, does not avert a finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar” and “the descriptive or generic wording to a trademark owned by a complainant to create a domain name consisting of multiple words that implies a relationship between the words can and in this case actually increase rather than decrease the confusing similarity”. ...The Respondent still stated that he “had nothing to do with this and will not accept any findings or rulings”.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has clearly shown that it is the owner of the registered SANOFI Trademarks.
...
2017-04-10 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-04-07 - Case Details