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. ...Second, the registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a trademark by an entity that has no relationship to that mark may be sufficient evidence of opportunistic bad faith. ...
2021-01-29 - Case Details
The third element a complainant must establish is that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and hence the first element of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...
2020-01-20 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant make the following contentions.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant first argues that it owns several trademarks E LECLERC registered prior to the disputed domain name. ...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 trademarks registered by the Complainant.
...
2021-02-11 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that:
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's PLAYBOY trademarks
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's PLAYBOY trademarks because it incorporates the PLAYBOY trademark precisely and merely adds the generic term “relax”. ...The onus of proving these elements is on the complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element, the Complainant must have rights in a trademark or service mark, and the disputed domain name must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark or service mark.
...
2009-03-04 - Case Details
None of these integers alone would preclude the disputed Domain Name from being confusingly similar [.….]
Considering the disputed Domain Name as a whole, the combined effect of the differences does not alter the conclusion that it is confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered trademarks. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered trademark rights.”
For these reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.
...
2010-02-15 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is convinced that the Complainant has established that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's earlier registered trademark MENTOS. ...Finally, the addition of the top-level domain name “.mobi” is irrelevant when determining whether a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a protected trademark.
In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered trademark MENTOS.
...
2009-09-02 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent contends that the domain name at issue is not confusingly similar to Complainant's ACTIVIA marks, since when the logos of the two enterprises are compared they are clearly distinguishable. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Where a domain name incorporates the complainant's mark in its entirety, the domain name is generally confusingly similar to the complainant's mark, despite the addition of other words in the domain name and despite the fact that common words may be appended or common words inserted therein. ...
2009-01-14 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name pairs the Complainant’s well-known WAL-MART trademark with the term “unique offers”. ...Other panels have found confusing similarity under similar circumstances. See, e.g., Parfums Christian Dior v. 1 Netpower, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0022 ( and confusingly similar to CHRISTIAN DIOR); Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc. v. ...
2008-02-18 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The addition of further words as prefix or suffix respectively to a word constituting the Complainant’s mark has not removed the confusing similarity of each of the domain names to the mark VALIUM.
...D2004-0589, the panel expressed the view that ‘no good faith
can be assumed in Respondent’s conduct, in view of the fact that the Domain
Name is confusingly similar with Complainant’s trademark and is used in
connection with the promotion and sale of competing products’.
...
2007-05-11 - Case Details
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The evidence presented by the Complainant demonstrates that Complainant’s trademark
TOYOTA has long been a federally registered trademark in the United States.
...Because both marks are protectable marks and designs, the Panel next looks
to whether the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the service marks. The
Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical
to Complainant’s service mark TOYOTA FINANCIAL SERVICES and is confusingly similar
to Complainant’s mark TOYOTA.
...
2001-07-13 - Case Details
In relation to element (i), the Complainant contends that the domain name in question is confusingly similar to the "Philips" trademark registered by the Complainant. Addition of the word "calculator" does not make dissimilar to "Philips", in fact, it is extremely similar. ...They indicate a relationship between the Complainant’s mark and the domain name in question. There is no doubt that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant. The Administrative Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to the registered trademark of the Complainant.
...
2003-01-13 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts, inter alia, as follows:
(i) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the MICROSOFT Mark.
(ii) The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s website addresses incorporating the MICROSOFT Mark.
...The Domain Name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s distinctive trademark
and as such creates sufficient similarity to be confusingly similar (see Section 4(a)
of the Policy).
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s trademark pursuant to the Policy Paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2004-03-10 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant makes the following contentions.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
First, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is highly similar to
its earlier trademarks since it reproduces its trademark EURAZEO together with the term “groupe”.
...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 trademarks in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2022-10-05 - Case Details
The Complainant also notes that the “lplfinance” portion of the disputed domain name is confusingly similar
to its LPL FINANCIAL trademark given the visual, phonetic, and semantic similarities between “finance” and
“financial”.
...In this regard, the LPL mark is readily recognizable within the disputed
domain name and as such, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the LPL trademark. Further,
the “lplfinance” portion of the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s LPL
FINANCIAL trademark given that the terms “finance” and “financial” are very similar in terms of appearance,
pronunciation, and meaning. ...
2023-02-09 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant must prove that the Disputed Domain Name is
confusingly similar to the registered trademark in which 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...
2023-08-07 - Case Details
page 3
6. Discussion and Findings
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...
2024-11-25 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant makes the following submission
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the registered owner of trade marks in numerous jurisdictions. The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trade Mark.
...The onus of proving these elements is on the Complainant even though the Respondent failed to submit a response.
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.
...
2020-04-29 - Case Details
i) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has produced complete evidence demonstrating that the Complainant is entitled to use the trademark "SANTA LUCIA". ...Consequently, the domain name and the Complainant’s trademarks
are confusingly similar (see National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing,
Inc. v. Don Deaube, R & D Enterprises, WIPO
Case No. ...
2004-02-09 - Case Details
Therefore, the Complainant considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
The Complainant also alleges that the addition of a generic Top-Level Domain name such as “.com” is irrelevant to determine whether a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a protected mark or not.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The evidence presented demonstrates that the Complainant is the owner of international registrations for the trademark BOLLORÉ/BOLLORE. ...
2016-11-29 - Case Details
page 3
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has documented its ownership of various U.S. trademark registrations for the SOMALOGIC
mark, covering life science research and development services, as well as development testing services.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-11-14 - Case Details