Complainant
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar or identical to the Complainant’s trademark with the only adjunction of the “.com” extension.
...Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark B&B HOTELS.
The standing test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the trademark and the disputed domain name to determine whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the trademark. ...
2021-10-21 - 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 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
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
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
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
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence adduced by Complainant as noted above, this Panel has no hesitation in finding that Complainant has rights in the ACCUTANE mark and the other similar related marks cited by Complainant. ...D2016-0672 (where the panel found to be confusingly similar to the ACCUTANE mark) and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Marina Kovtun,
WIPO Case No. D2016-0852 ( found to be confusingly similar to the ACCUTANE mark).
...
2016-10-25 - Case Details
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
As indicated in section 5B above, there is no dispute between the parties that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's EASYDATE registered trade mark; nor could there be. ...The Panel has found on the balance of probabilities that the Respondent registered the Domain Name knowing it to be confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark in use in the same line of business and with a view to attracting visitors to its website.
...
2016-01-26 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trademark ACCUTANE and to its registered trademarks ROACCUTAN and ROACCUTANE.
...The Respondent is therefore using a domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark to attract visitors to a website on which it also offers other, third-party pharmaceutical products for sale. ...
2016-01-19 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
1. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for the mark AIRTEL for telecommunications-related goods and services in many jurisdictions.
...Complainant also argues that the domain name is confusingly similar to the AIRTEL mark.
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. 1 Here, the domain name does incorporate the AIRTEL mark in its entirety. ...
2015-12-18 - 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, is the Disputed Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
...It is well established that a domain name that wholly incorporates a trademark may be confusingly similar to that trademark for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of a descriptive or generic word. ...
2016-09-01 - Case Details
The dominant part of the Domain Name is identical or very similar to the ZIONS Marks. Accordingly, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Marks. The additional word “email” only exacerbates the confusing similarity and is not distinguishing because it alludes to emails that Complainant could send. ...The Domain Name, , wholly incorporates the ZIONS DIRECT Mark thus it is confusingly similar to that Mark. Adding “email-” to the ZIONS DIRECT Mark does not diminish the confusing similarity with the Domain Name. ...
2017-07-03 - Case Details
The generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com" does not affect the assessment that a domain name is confusingly similar to a particular trade mark. The non-distinctive addition "China", "cn", "1" and "2" to the Disputed Domain Names cannot change the fact that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar with the BHP trademarks.
...The Respondent's registration of domain names that are confusingly similar to the Complainant's well-known BHP trademark constitutes registrations in bad faith.
...
2017-05-22 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant makes the following submissions.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark as it features all elements of the Trade Mark, with the exception of the letter “o” replacing the letter “a”. ...However, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s default.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.
...
2017-11-16 - 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
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
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
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