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
Accordingly, the Panel is of the view that the Disputed
Domain Names are confusingly similar to the ZENNI trademarks and the Complainants have satisfied
paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...The Panel is prepared to infer that the
Respondent knew or should have known that its registration of the Disputed Domain Names would be
confusingly similar to the ZENNI trademarks (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.2.). Accordingly, the Panel
finds that the Respondent registering the Disputed Domain Names, which are confusingly similar to the
ZENNI trademarks, which are well-known and registered earlier, is a clear indicator of bad faith.
...
2023-07-31 - Case Details
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade
marks.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel finds that the second element is present.
...The Parties
A. Complainant
B. Respondent
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith...
2023-10-18 - Case Details
Complainant
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the
Complainant has rights (Policy, Paragraph 4(a)(i); Rules, Paragraphs 3(b)(viii), (b)(ix)(1)).
...“It is also
well established that the specific top level of a domain name such as ‘.com’, ‘.org’ or ‘.net’ does not affect the
domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar.”)
Consequently, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademark ARCELORMITTAL.
...
2023-08-14 - 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
The onus of proving these elements is on the Complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element the Complainant must have trade or service mark rights, and the disputed domain names must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade or service mark.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. Consequently, the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2008-05-26 - Case Details
On the basis of the evidence submitted by the Complainant and, in particular, with regards to the content of
the relevant provisions of the Policy (paragraph 4(a), (b), and (c)), the Panel concludes as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under the first element of paragraph 4 (a) of the Policy, the Complainant must establish that the disputed
domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has
rights.
...Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-10-09 - Case Details
page 4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), the Complainant shall prove that the Disputed Domain Name is
identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-10-03 - Case Details
FA 1142567 (finding confusingly similar to Complainant’s YAHOO! mark); YAHOO! Inc. et al., v. Alex Vorot et al., NAF Claim No. FA 159547 (finding the and , among others, confusingly similar to Complainant’s YAHOO! mark); and YAHOO! Inc. et al. v. Chan, NAF Claim No. FA 162050 (finding and , among others, confusingly similar to the Complainant’s YAHOO! ...
2011-11-28 - Case Details
The Respondent is offering alternative products
under a confusingly similar trademark. The Respondent is using different elements from the Complainants’
brand assets and materials despite being requested to cease unauthorized use. ...The Respondent is alleged to have registered and used a domain name that is confusingly
similar to the MARGRA trademark. This strikes at the commercial interests of both of the Complainants.
...
2023-04-12 - Case Details
Summary of Complainant’s Legal Contentions
1. The Domain Names Are Confusingly Similar to THE DESERT SUN™ Mark
a. The Domain Names are confusingly similar to THE DESERT SUN™ mark.
...Identical or Confusingly Similar
The threshold issue in relation to the issue of whether the accused domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's mark, is a determination of whether Complainant has protectable rights in the mark "THE DESERT SUN". ...
2003-01-21 - Case Details
Walsucks and Walmarket Puerto Rico identified that the confusingly similar test may be held to a different standard when used with Internet search engines. See Wal-mart Stores, Inc. v. ...The Panel concludes that the Respondent's domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's marks."
A similar approach had been taken by the adminisrative panelist in EAuto, L.L.C. v. ...
2000-10-27 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the marks for which Complainant owns a multitude of trademark registrations in the U.S., China and in a number of other countries. ...Respondent is also using the term “moins”, which is confusingly similar to Complainant's MOEN mark, in connection with the sale of its kitchen fixtures and other products. ...
2009-02-23 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(i) Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant states that the Domain Names are identical and/or highly similar to the TRAVELEX Marks in which Complainant has extensive rights. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights, in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2018-12-17 - Case Details
Complainants contend that the Domain Names are identical with and confusingly similar to the trademark pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
Complainants argue that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the LOMA LINDA Mark, pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, because they wholly incorporate the common law LOMA LINDA Mark with the addition of generic terms “.org” and “.net”.
Respondent does not contest that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the purported trademark.
As numerous courts and prior UDRP panels have recognized, the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety is generally sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant's registered mark. ...
2009-03-23 - Case Details
These elements are discussed in turn below.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove both that it has rights in a mark, and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that mark.
...The question is whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to one or more of the Complainant’s marks. The Complainant vaguely alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its marks because “a number” of them contain references to the Gold Coast. ...
2013-11-26 - Case Details
As a general matter, a domain name is likely to be deemed to be confusingly similar to a mark if it incorporates the mark or a variation or dominant portion of the mark; however, such a finding is not automatic. ...The Panel therefore finds that the Domain Name is not identical to or confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has been shown to have rights under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2013-07-02 - Case Details
To constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, a domain name found to be confusingly similar must have been chosen for reasons completely unrelated to the AAA Marks. Respondent assuredly was aware of Complainant and its AAA Marks when registering the confusingly similar Domain Name and intends to divert Internet users seeking Complainant's products and services to Respondent's website.
...And although Complainant alleges that the Domain Name is substantially and confusingly similar to the AAA PREMIER Mark, Complainant has not shown how its AAA PREMIER Mark, the mark actually registered for locksmithing services, is substantially and confusingly similar to the Domain Name .
...
2015-07-15 - Case Details
The Complainant cited previous UDRP WIPO Panels’ decisions in which the panel has found domain names neglecting the period after the “www” prefix as well as misspelling the mark are confusingly similar to the asserted mark. The Panel has also held that domain names only typing a “ww” prefix are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. ...In addition, the Complainant also argues that the Courts have consistently recognized as “confusingly similar” the use of terms that are spelled only slightly differently than well-established marks. ...
2007-05-24 - Case Details
D2005-1190 in which the panel said that typosquatting “has consistently been regarded as creating domain names that are confusingly similar to the relevant mark”. Accordingly, the Complainant says that each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to its GROUPON trade mark.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first issue which requires consideration is whether the Complainant has, as it maintains, rights in the trade mark GROUPON. ...
2014-11-21 - Case Details