Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This Panel must first determine whether the disputed domain names and are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2021-07-05 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is phonetically and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and domain name involving the exchange of the first ‘m’ in the domain name for a ‘u’. ...Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is at least confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark rights.”
For similar reasons, the Panel concludes here that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark.
...
2010-09-01 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, do the Complainants have rights in a relevant trademark or trademarks and, second, are the Disputed Domain Names identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. ...D2004-0117 (a domain name incorporating a well-known trademark combined with a geographically descriptive term is confusingly similar to the trademark); Inter-IKEA Systems B.V. v. Hoon Huh,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0438 (the addition of the term “korea” in does not prevent the domain name from being confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark).
...
2021-09-20 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
For the purpose of considering whether the disputed domain name is identical or similar to the Complainants’ trade marks, the generic Top-Level Domains (“gTLDs”) “.com”, “.net”, and “.org” are disregarded as these are technical requirements of registration.
...The Respondents evidently registered each of these disputed domain names because they believed they were confusingly similar to one or more of the Complainants’ trade marks. Accordingly, the “vlc” and “vlk” component of these disputed domain names are found to be confusingly similar to the Complainants’ VULKAN trade mark.
...
2019-08-14 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has registered a large number of trademarks for PANAVISION throughout the world as evidenced by the Complaint.
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the registered and famous PANAVISION mark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. ...
2005-08-12 - Case Details
The second level domain name, "marlvoro", is visually and aurally confusingly similar to the MARLBORO trademark. The Complainant refers to analogous situations, where panels have found a registrant's domain name to be confusingly similar to the MARLBORO trademark and ordered the domain name to be transferred (Pfizer Inc. v.BargainName.com, WIPO case D2005-0299).
...For all the above cited reasons, the Panel concludes that disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark and therefore the condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is fulfilled.
...
2014-10-13 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant contends it is the owner of the service mark MACQUARIE in Australia, financial related services.
...In the first place, before establishing whether or not the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's service mark MACQUARIE, the Panel wishes to point out that the addition of the gTLD, i.e., ".com", ".biz", ".edu", or ".org", are not generally considered when determining if the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the registered trademark. ...
2015-12-01 - Case Details
This Panel agrees that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the VERIZON and VZW marks. Several previous UDRP panels have held that incorporating a trademark in its entirety is generally sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark. ...D2006-0751 (Finding confusingly similar to the complainant’s XENICAL mark); Pfizer, Inc. v. Martin Marketing,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0793 (Finding confusingly similar to Complainant’s VIAGRA mark); Hoffman-La Roche Inc. v. #1 Viagra Propecia Xenical & More Online Pharmacy,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-04-13 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(i) Identical or confusingly similar
Complainant contends that Respondent’s Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s
marks. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-04-17 - Case Details
As a result, the Panel determines that all of the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CIALIS trademark. See Lilly ICOS LLC v. Self,
WIPO Case No. D2005-1099 (where the panel found the disputed domain name, , to be confusingly similar to the mark CIALIS); Lilly ICOS LLC v. ...D2005-0694 (in which 23 disputed domain names that contained the CIALIS mark in its entirety, along with various additional generic terms, were all found to be confusingly similar to that trademark); Lilly ICOS LLC v. Dan Eccles,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0750 (finding to be confusingly similar to the CIALIS trademark.); and Busy Body, Inc. v. ...
2013-09-17 - 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 disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-01-16 - Case Details
Respondent also asserts that the disputed domain name is not confusingly similar because it contains the distinguishing word “precast,” which relates directly to Respondent’s business. ...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. ...
2019-12-06 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
5.1 The Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
5.1.1 The Complainant asserts that the 277 domain names in issue are all confusingly similar to the KAZAA trademark. ...These actions by the Respondent evidence a deliberate strategy of registering domain names confusingly similar to the Complainant’s KAZAA mark.
6.10 Based on the above, the Panel finds that all but 49 of the domain names in issue are confusingly similar to the KAZAA mark. ...
2005-01-13 - Case Details
Respondent takes unfair advantage of its confusingly similar Disputed Domain Name to disrupt Complainant’s business to its detriment.
The Respondent has not filed a Response. ...Discussion and Finding
The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Uniform Policy asks whether the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks in which Complainant has rights.
...
2002-09-18 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name consists of the registered trademark BAYER together with the term “science”.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-01-13 - Case Details
The Complainant further contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
earlier trademarks since it reproduces the FORBES mark entirely. ...Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-10-23 - Case Details
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 the mark.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-05-23 - Case Details
In light of the foregoing, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademark. The Domain Name consists of the Trademark, followed by the word “firearms”. ...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.
...
2022-03-08 - 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. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-10-20 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds and decides that the Complainant has established registered rights in its APPEN trademark.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-04-19 - Case Details