A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant asserts rights in its EROS marks through registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. ...The Panel finds that Respondent’s and domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). See Health Devices Corp. v. ...
2007-12-07 - Case Details
This fact, it is contended, also weighs in favor of a finding that the contested domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark.
For these reasons, the Complainant submits that Respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to service marks in which Complainant has rights as required under Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
...Given that the CONVERSE mark is notoriously associated with athletic footwear products, particularly basketball shoes, the resulting combination makes the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the CONVERSE mark.
The disputed domain name is thus confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...
2007-09-21 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar (Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy)
6.5 The test for confusing similarity under the Policy is confined to comparing
the trademark with the disputed domain names. ...Prior UDRP panels have
handled a number of cases involving on-line pharmacies, where a domain name
confusingly similar to a trademark is used to redirect internet users to an
on-line pharmacy. These cases have invariably held that a seller does not have
the right to incorporate a trademark into a confusingly similar domain name,
nor does it gain rights by doing so. ...
2006-03-13 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first issue in this matter is whether the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. ...This conduct is commonly referred to as “typosquatting”
and creates a virtually identical and/or confusingly similar mark to the Complainant’s
trade-mark (Wachovia Corporation v. Peter Carrington, WIPO
Case No. ...
2006-03-21 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name is confusingly similar to the Levitra trademark.
When a respondent merely adds descriptive terms to an otherwise distinctive and well known trademark, the domain name is considered confusingly similar to the trademark.
Adding a descriptive phrase such as "all about" to the distinctive
Levitra trademark results in a confusingly similar domain name. ...
2003-06-13 - 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. The Panel concludes that in the present case, the Disputed
Domain Name is confusingly similar to the PLUGPLAY Mark as explained below.
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2025-06-11 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant must establish that it has a trademark or service mark and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark or service mark for the Complainant to succeed.
...The Respondent has registered the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known trademark. UDRP panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. ...
2021-05-31 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), the Complainant shall prove that the Disputed Domain Name is
identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...Therefore, the Panel holds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademark and that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2023-09-28 - 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. ...Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
B. Respondent
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-02-14 - Case Details
page 3
Therefore, according to Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with Complainant’s
trademark CI CERESIO INVESTORS, fulfilling paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy and paragraphs 3(b)(viii) and
3(b)(ix)(1) of the Rules.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-01-11 - Case Details
In the Panel’s view, the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks registered in the USA, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and other countries, i.e. ...The Court there was dealing with domain names identical or confusingly similar to registered trademarks where the domain name holders had tried to sell the names to the trademark owners. ...
2000-08-17 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element the Complainant must have trade or service mark rights, and the disputed domain names must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade or service mark.
...It is possible that the Complainant has unregistered common law trade mark rights in “enomcentral”, and the disputed domain name would certainly be confusingly similar to that mark, however it is unnecessary to explore this point further as the Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark.
...
2008-02-19 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
1. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant owns US federal trademark registrations for the marks ZIONS, ZIONS BANK, and ZIONSBANK.COM for its banking services.
...See Rules, paragraph 14(b).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established its rights in the marks ZIONS, ZIONS BANK, and ZIONSBANK.COM by virtue of the evidence of its US federal trademark registrations.
...
2014-06-27 - 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 trademark LOJAS RENNER. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has established that it has rights in its trademark LOJAS RENNER. ...
2017-02-01 - Case Details
According to Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Trademark because it incorporates the entire Trademark and simply adds the generic term “store” along with the country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.nl”. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trademark as it incorporates the Trademark in its entirety. ...
2021-11-25 - Case Details
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the burden of proof with regard to these elements lies with the Complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This question raises two issues: (1) does Complainant have rights in a trademark or service mark; and (2) is the disputed domain name identical or confusingly similar to such trademark or service mark.
...The Panel also finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark. The disputed domain name includes Complainant’s trademark, but has simply added an “o” after “rb”, and the term “scolanduk.” ...
2012-11-14 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(a) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the domain names and are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks listed above.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. The Complainant has therefore satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2010-11-29 - Case Details
Further, the Complainant has a number of registered trade mark rights in the term “IWC”.
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the IWC trade mark. Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark 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. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark and, therefore, the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...
2013-02-27 - Case Details
In addition, the Panel finds that the combination of the identical term “Saks” together with a term that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s OFF 5TH and SAKS FIFTH AVENUE trademarks is confusingly similar.
The Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks for the purposes of the Policy.
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has chosen not to reply to the Complaint. ...
2013-08-13 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks. It is visually and phonetically similar and almost identical to Complainant’s INTACCT marks. ...Moreover, domain names that incorporate the entirety of a trademark are typically considered confusingly similar for the purposes of UDRP standing. See Covance, Inc. and Covance Laboratories Ltd. v. ...
2018-08-01 - Case Details