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
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
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
I have
provided all the details.”
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...I have provided all the details.”
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-10-02 - 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
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
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
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
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
They contend that this should be done because, within the meaning of paragraph 4 of the Policy, the “Bally domain names” are confusingly similar to the First Complainant's registered BALLY'S service marks, the “Caesars domain names” are confusingly similar to the Second Complainant's registered CAESARS PALACE and CAESARS service marks, the “Harrahs domain names” are confusingly similar to the First Complainant's registered HARRAH'S service marks, the “Paris domain names” are confusingly similar to the First Complainant's registered PARIS service marks, the “Rio domain name” is confusingly similar to the First Complainant's registered RIO service mark and the “Showboat domain names” are confusingly similar to the First Complainant's registered SHOWBOAT service marks.
...The Panel will therefore deal with each of these requirements in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the “Bally domain names” are confusingly similar to the First Complainant's registered BALLY'S service marks. ...
2008-12-03 - Case Details
The passive holding of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a well known trademark constitutes registration and use of the domain name in bad faith.
...The Panel considers each element in order.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
With regard to whether the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to trademarks in which Complainant has rights, Complainant clearly possesses legal rights in the trademarks COCA-COLA, COKE, COCA-COLA BLAK, and COKE BLAK. ...
2008-01-11 - 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
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
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
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
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
Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith for the following reasons: (i) the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s rights in the common law trademark CYCLING NEWS when he registered the confusingly similar domain name ; (ii) the Respondent is using the confusingly similar domain name in association with the operation of a website which provides similar news and information content as the Complainant’s website, which is in direct competition with the Complainant; (iii) the Respondent is thereby preventing the trademark owner from obtaining and using the disputed domain name; and (iv) the Respondent is using a confusingly similar domain name in association with a website to trade on the goodwill and reputation of the Complainant, and to interfere with the Complainant’s business.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The critical question in this proceeding is whether the Complainant has rights in the common law trademark CYCLING NEWS sufficient to support its claims. ...
2011-02-14 - Case Details