Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...The result is that the Complainant has shown that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant had shown that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2010-05-05 - Case Details
Firstly, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or at least confusingly similar to
the Mark in which the Complainant has rights. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar in that it
wholly incorporates the Mark and only a letter is removed from it. ...page 4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it has registered trademark rights in the Mark.
...
2023-10-30 - Case Details
page 3
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names; and
(iii) the Disputed Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
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 Panel
concludes that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BREITLING Mark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the
Complainant.
...
2023-07-21 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels found that SODEXO marks are
well-known. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SODEXO
marks as it is composed of the identical sign “Sodexo”, associated with the letters “ab” and the word “group”.
...Moreover, the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP
Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) and, where appropriate, will decide consistent with the
consensus views captured therein.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy it should be established that the disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the complainant has rights.
...
2023-06-16 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant argued the following:
I. Identical or Confusingly Similar
That the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ARKEMA trademark.
...That the mere fact that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name which is confusingly similar to
the Complainant’s trademark without authorization is, in and of itself, evidence of its bad faith registration.
...
2024-02-19 - Case Details
The Complainant
asserts that the Respondent acquired the disputed domain name on September 21, 2023, and that the
Respondent set up a website at the disputed domain name that copies content of the Complainant’s website,
including by using trademarks identical or confusingly similar to the BATALÁ NEW YORK mark and trade
dress and imagery confusingly similar to that used by the Complainant.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-10-08 - Case Details
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the HALEON mark in which
the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent lacks a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain
name as it does not have any trademark rights to the term HALEON, “halogen” or any similar term.
...This dispute resolution procedure is accepted by the domain name registrant as a condition of registration.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-11-15 - 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
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 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
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
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
Prior WIPO UDRP panels have recognized that the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety may be sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered mark. AT&T Corp. v. William Gormally,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0758 (finding confusingly similar to ATT); Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. ...D2007-1288 (finding and confusingly similar to EARTHLINK); Microsoft Corporation v. MindKind,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0193 (finding confusingly similar to MICROSOFT).
...
2010-03-15 - 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
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 names must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.
...Therefore, the use of the gTLD “info” in the disputed domain names is not germane to the determination of whether that domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered mark.
In the light of the foregoing, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered mark and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2009-10-12 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires two elements to be proved, namely that (i) the Respondent's domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, (ii) in which the Complainant has rights.
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark QUIKSILVER.
The other element to prove is that Complainant has rights in the trademark. ...
2009-02-03 - 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
Complainant further contends that the Domain Name is identical with and confusingly similar to the CELLULARONE and CELLONE marks and the variants contained in the Trademarks pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
...At least one panel of arbitrators from this forum has in the past found confusing similarity in a situation remarkably similar to the present one. See Nike, Inc. v. Farrukh Zia, WIPO Case No. D2000-0167 (holding "enike.com" and "e-nike.com" to be confusingly similar to Complainant Nike, Inc.'...
2000-12-27 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is similar to the Complainant’s CREDIT MUTUEL trademarks in which the Complainant has multiple trademark registrations in France and other European jurisdictions, since 1988.
...Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark for purposes of the Policy when the domain name includes the complainant’s registered mark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name.
...
2015-01-30 - Case Details