A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is identical with or confusingly similar to the PLANET FITNESS Mark pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). Respondent has not contested the assertions by Complaint that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the PLANET FITNESS Mark.
As numerous courts and prior UDRP panels have recognized, the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered mark. ...
2010-11-10 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered mark for TIGERDIRECT. The only difference is the plural signifier “s”. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant clearly has rights in a mark for the purpose of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...
2010-05-10 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has shown rights regarding a trademark or service mark for the purpose of the Policy.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-10-22 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends, in relevant part, as follows:
- The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the MANULIFE Trademark because it “a purposeful misspelling of Complainant’s MANULIFE trademark”, “must be considered a prototypical example of typosquatting”, and “is visually similar to Complainant’s trademark, and the Disputed Domain Name is also phonetically similar to Complainant’s trademark in terms of pronunciation...Policy, paragraph 4(a).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based upon the trademark registration cited by Complainant, it is apparent that Complainant has rights in and to the MANULIFE Trademark.
...
2019-11-13 - Case Details
Ergo, the Panel determines that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to that mark. See, ArcelorMittal (Société Anonyme) v. El Manuel Es Pura Bellesa, Acero,
WIPO Case No. D2020-0868 (finding that is confusingly similar to the MITTAL mark); Ternium México, S.A. de C.V., Hylsa S.A. de. C.V. v. Alejandro Lascurain,
WIPO Case No. ...
2020-08-07 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfactorily proven that it has registered trademark rights for BKS.
...D2001-0110, stating “The incorporation of a Complainant’s well-known trademark in the registered domain name is considered sufficient to find the domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.”
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first requirement that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark, under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy
B. ...
2020-05-13 - 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 trademark, AXA, in light of the fact that it wholly incorporates the Complainant’s mark.
...D2004-0509, in which the panel notably found that a domain name comprising the name AXA alongside the descriptive words “financial” and “group” (as in the present case) was confusingly similar to the AXA trademark.
Previous UDRP panels have held that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is not to be taken into account when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark.
...
2020-06-02 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the DAILY MAIL trademark. The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to this trademark. 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, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2020-03-23 - Case Details
The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent’s use of confusingly similar Domain Names seeks to exploit likely typing mistakes on the part of Internet users and particularly so since the Complainant operates its core business online.
...The fact that the Respondent registered “carvanna” in the Top-Level Domains (“TLDs”) “.info”, “.net” and “.org”, provides no significance in determining whether the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark.
Based on the submitted evidence and the uncontested assertions made by the Complainant, the Panel concludes that these Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark in which the Complainant has rights and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
...
2019-12-30 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the MDRT trademark. The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to this trademark. 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, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2021-02-26 - Case Details
Opinion of the Panel
1. Are the domain names identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights?
The Panel finds that the domain name
is substantially identical to the Complainant’s registered trademark ALASKA
STOCK IMAGES, and confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered trademark
ALASKA STOCK. ...Vasily
Terkin, WIPO Case No. D2003-0888 (
confusingly similar to PORSCHE). The Panel finds that both disputed domain names
are similar to Complainants marks.
2. ...
2005-01-06 - Case Details
The Respondent, having failed to respond in these proceedings is in default, and the Panel shall draw such 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.
...In the 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)(ii) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2009-12-29 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
5.A Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
5.A.1 But for omission of the word “net” from the Complainant's COMCAST SPORTSNET trademark and domain name, the disputed domain name is identical. ...In the circumstances, the Panel has no hesitation in finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark and that, consequently, the Complaint meets the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2008-10-31 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is a marginally misspelt version of a combination of two service marks. ...Other WIPO Panel decisions have regarded a domain name that is confusingly similar to a combination of trademarks in which the Complainant has rights as being “confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights”: Vivendi S.A., The Seagram Company Ltd., Joseph E. ...
2008-05-14 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant argues that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to what it terms its TRADER family of marks, and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. ...Still, it must be considered whether some part of the Internet public would find the Domain Name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks in overall impression.
“Trader” is itself a common, dictionary word in English denoting “one that trades”, i.e., engages in “buying and selling for a profit”. ...
2008-05-27 - Case Details
It is implicit in this contention that, if the term “Corriere” is distinctively associated with the Complainant’s mark, that its use in the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to that mark.
However, the Complainant’s evidence does not clearly establish that contention. ...For all these reasons, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is not
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. This finding also appears
generally consistent with previous panel decisions, involving similar circumstances
to this case (in addition to the cases cited above, see also High-Class Distributions
S.r.l. v. ...
2006-07-27 - 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
A complainant must prove each of these three elements.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant says that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark CMA CGM. ...The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Use of a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a web page containing links to third-party sites, some of which may be operated by competitors of the party having rights in the mark to which the Domain Name is confusingly similar, cannot, on the face of it, provide any rights or legitimate interests for the owner of the Domain Name.
...
2016-07-27 - 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 US and China.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the MONTBLANC Marks because they fully incorporate the MONTBLANC Marks. Also, it is confusingly similar because it consists of the MONTBLANC Marks in their entirety, with the inclusion of the generic term “official,” which intends to give consumers the impression that it is Complainant’s official website.
...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. ...
2013-08-21 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent avers that the disputed domain name is not identical to nor confusingly similar to the marks cited by the Complainant, nor has the domain name been registered or use in bad faith. ...Respondent advises that the domain name was registered with the intent to point it at the California Tire web site.
(1) Identical or Confusingly Similar
Respondent submits that the domain name is not identical to nor confusingly similar to the marks cited by the Complainant. ...
2002-08-21 - Case Details