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
Respondent
The Respondent’s contentions are as follows.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Disputed Domain Names are not confusingly similar to the Trade Marks.
The Complainant does not have any trade mark registrations or pending registrations relating to the Disputed Domain Names (i.e., for “geigo” or “giego”).
...Accordingly, the Panel declines to accept the supplementary submissions as part of the record in this proceeding.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Marks.
...
2012-10-04 - Case Details
Thus, the Community trademark registration is identical or at least confusingly similar to the Domain Name.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, a complainant must prove that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which complainant has rights.
...
2011-09-07 - Case Details
In particular, in its Complaint filed in October 2010, the Complainant asserts that:
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar or identical to the CANALSAT trademark in the light of the fact that it incorporates its trademark in its entirety in the domain name. ...The Respondent has failed to file a formal reply in these proceedings and is therefore 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.
...
2010-12-22 - 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
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
Translation of the Complaint and other materials would cause unnecessary expense and delay.
B. 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.
...It is well established that a domain name is confusingly similar to a mark "when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation". ...
2014-12-03 - Case Details
Complainant
5.1 The Complainant contends that the disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks in that the disputed Domain Name exactly reproduces the Complainant’s trademark INTESA SAN PAOLO with the addition of the letter “s” in the first component “intesa”. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.3 The Panel finds from the unchallenged facts, and without any hesitation, that the disputed Domain Name, is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s globally known trademark INTESA SANPAOLO in the banking and financial sector. ...
2012-10-29 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark IG INDEX. The only difference being that the letter “i” comes after the letter “n”. ...The same thinking is carried over into decisions under the Policy because the words “Identical or confusingly similar” appear in paragraph 4(a)(i) thereof. The comparison in the present case is between the trademark IG INDEX and the expression “ignidex”. ...
2012-12-13 - Case Details
Complainant
The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s Trademarks
According to Complainant, the Domain Name incorporates its trademark SUPERSHUTTLE entirely, adding only the country code Top Level Domain “.nl”. ...B. Respondent
The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s Trademarks
Respondent operates its business under the trade names “Supershuttle” and “Supershuttle Schiphol Services”.
...
2013-01-11 - Case Details
The addition of other terms in the domain name does not affect a finding that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to complainant’s registered trademark. It is important to note that in this case the direct translation of Complainant’s mark in Spanish does not preclude a finding of the Disputed Domain Name being confusingly similar to that mark.
Respondent has not contested the assertions by Complainant that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SPONGEBOB Marks.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SPONGEBOB Marks pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2010-10-18 - 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
Accordingly, the Panel finds the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the ROLAND
GARROS Mark in which Complainant has rights and Complainant has thus satisfied its burden under
Paragraph 4(a)(i) 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...
2022-07-18 - Case Details
Moreover, the disputed domain name is also confusingly similar to the trade mark BOURSORAMA
BANQUES of the Complainant, which is reproduced nearly identically. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-02-01 - Case Details
Considering these requirements, the Panel rules as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain names are
identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...The Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark and
the Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2023-03-20 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it has well-established rights in its well-known MICHELIN
trademarks. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-02-08 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well-accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-01-22 - 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
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.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-08-05 - Case Details