The Panel will deal with each of the requirements in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the Domain Names are (i) identical or
confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, (ii) in which the Complainant has rights.
...The Panel will deal with each of the requirements in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-03-23 - 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 domain name is identical
or confusingly similar to that trademark. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant.
...
2022-04-29 - 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 domain name is identical
or confusingly similar to that trademark. ...It can be inferred that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant
and its VERKADA Mark when it registered the confusingly similar disputed domain name. UDRP panels
have found that the registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a well-known trademark by an
unaffiliated entity can create a presumption of bad faith. ...
2022-04-06 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the HEETS 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. ...
2021-11-17 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CALIBER HOME LOANS trademark.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has established rights in its trademark CALIBER HOME LOANS. ...
2021-10-15 - 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. ...Thus, the Disputed Domain Name is
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s VFS GLOBAL Mark.
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?...
2023-01-11 - Case Details
Michael Robertson,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0009).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel agrees with Complainant’s allegation that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s EQUIFAX mark.
...WIPO
Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section
1.9 (UDRP panels consider domain names which consist of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of
a trademark are considered to be confusingly similar).
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
...
2023-01-20 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in the Complainant’s Trademark, based on its various
trademark registrations listed above in Section 4.
...As such, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
Trademark, and accordingly, paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2022-07-29 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the ANT FINANCIAL 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. ...
2020-06-10 - Case Details
The Complainant continues that the Respondent has created the Disputed Domain Name which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MANULIFE trademark and also its domain name . ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has established rights in its trademark MANULIFE. ...
2021-05-07 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the CITRIX 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. ...
2021-04-06 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark and, second, are the Disputed Domain Names identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. ...Thus, the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SODEXO Mark.
Accordingly, the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant.
...
2020-09-08 - Case Details
Complainant
5.1 The Complainant asserts that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s INTERSYSTEMS trademark and the Complainant’s domain name associated with the trademark in that the Disputed Domain Name merely omits the letter “e” from the term “intersystems”. ...The Complainant further argues that a domain name that merely omits one letter or makes similar small changes to a registered trade mark is confusingly similar to the mark following a number of previous UDRP decisions including for instance, Media West-LCJ, Inc., Gannet Kentucky Limited Partnership, Gannett, Co, Inc. v. ...
2017-09-18 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
(i) Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant contends the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its GREENVELOPE trademark. ...Respondent's failure to file a response does not automatically result in a decision in favor of Complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel must first determine whether the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. ...
2017-03-03 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is at least confusingly similar to its ALSTOM trademark reproducing it with a deliberate misspelling: a number “0” instead of the letter “o”.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, there are two requirements which the Complainant must establish, first that it has rights in a trademark or service mark, and second that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark.
...
2019-12-17 - Case Details
Complainant contends the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SHELLAC Marks because it incorporates the entirety of the SHELLAC mark and adds the generic terms “nails,” “and,” and “spa”. ...D2006-1351 (recognizing that numerous cases have held that incorporating a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a domain name is confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered mark). The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy in establishing its right in the SHELLAC Marks, and showing that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to this mark.
...
2019-09-13 - Case Details
The Complainants submit that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trademarks for FACEBOOK and INSTAGRAM in jurisdictions throughout the world, including those mentioned under section 4.
...Accordingly, this Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trademarks FACEBOOK and INSTAGRAM, respectively; therefore, this requisite has been satisfied.
...
2019-12-24 - Case Details
D2000-1259 (finding , , , and to be confusingly similar to complainants’ trade and service marks).
In short, it is evident that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s widely known registered mark NATIONAL EXPRESS, and is a close typographical variant of Complainant’s own domain name. For this reason, the Panel concludes that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Respondent’s NATIONAL EXPRESS mark, a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
...
2008-03-31 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant has established trademark rights in relation to the mark FENDI.
...As a consequence, the Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark FENDI owned by the Complainant. Therefore, the Panel considers that the condition set out by Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been met.
...
2007-03-12 - Case Details
The Respondent, having failed to respond in these proceedings is in default, and the Panel shall draw inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate.
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.
...Therefore, the use of the gTLD “biz” in the disputed domain name is not germane to the determination of whether that domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered mark.
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)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2009-10-14 - Case Details