A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has properly asserted its rights in the BVLGARI Trademark due to the long use and
registrations worldwide.
...In light of the above, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s BVLGARI Trademark and that the Complainant has established the first condition of
paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2023-06-09 - Case Details
In particular, the Complainant asserts that:
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has
rights.
- The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered DAVIS POLK
trademarks, in light of the fact that it wholly incorporates the Complainant’s mark.
...The Panel may draw appropriate
inferences from the available evidence submitted by the Complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element, the Complainant must have relevant rights in a trademark and the disputed domain
name must be identical or confusingly similar to such trademark.
...
2024-01-29 - 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...
2024-05-22 - Case Details
Accordingly, these disputed domain names are confusingly similar to all
of the Complainant’s marks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-11-12 - 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
In particular, the Complainant asserts that:
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
- The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered ROTHSCHILD trademarks, in light of the fact that it wholly incorporates the Complainant’s mark.
...The Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the available evidence submitted by the Complainant.
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.
...
2020-08-20 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights over the trademark DREAM MARRIAGE based on the trademark registration cited under section 4 above and the related trademark certificate submitted as annex 4 to the Complaint.
...In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademark DREAM MARRIAGE in which the Complainant has established rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2020-08-19 - Case Details
The gTLD is a standard registration requirement and as such is to be disregarded for the purposes of determining whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark.
Where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or a dominant feature of the mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the BELFIUS Mark for the purposes of the Policy and thus paragraph 4(a)(i) thereof has been established.
...
2021-02-11 - 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
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
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
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
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
Complainant
The Complainant contends as follows:
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name and the trademark WYNN are confusingly similar. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. ...
2019-10-01 - 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
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
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
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
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
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