Complainant
The Complainant asserts that it has prevailed in numerous proceedings under various domain name dispute
policies for domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to the EQUIFAX Trademark, including the
UDRP.
The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its EQUIFAX
Trademark in view of the Disputed Domain Name contains the EQUIFAX Trademark in its entirety, simply
omitting the letter “i”.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has properly asserted its rights in the EQUIFAX Trademark due to the long use and
number of registrations globally.
...
2022-08-17 - Case Details
page 3
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.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-04-11 - Case Details
A complainant must prove each of these three elements to succeed.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the owner of the NEWELL and NEWELL BRANDS trademarks and clearly has rights in those marks.
...Here, however, the Respondent is not known by the Domain Name. Moreover, the Respondent has used the confusingly similar Domain Name to impersonate the Complainant for illegitimate purposes described earlier. ...
2021-10-22 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the EQUINOR 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. ...
2021-11-08 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainants have rights in the ZENNI OPTICAL trademark. The Panel finds that each of the Disputed Domain Names is confusingly similar to the ZENNI OPTICAL trademark. ...The Panel agrees in this regard with the approach set out in WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9, namely:
“Is a domain name consisting of a misspelling of the complainant’s trademark (i.e., typosquatting) confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark?
A domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element.”
...
2022-02-23 - Case Details
The Complainant must still prove each of the three elements required by Policy paragraph 4(a)”).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Ownership of a nationally or regionally registered trademark serves as prima facie evidence that Complainant has trademark rights for the purposes of standing to file this Complaint. ...The only remaining question under the first element of the Policy is whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s BOURSORAMA trademark. In this Complaint, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BOURSORAMA trademark because, disregarding the “.co” country-code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”), the trademark is contained in its entirety within the disputed domain name. ...
2022-02-22 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP, the Complainant must prove that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...Where a domain name “consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark”,1 the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing2. It is well-established, that the applicable ccTLD should be disregarded under the confusingly similarity test as a standard registration requirement.3
Because the word “carrefur” is a misspelling of the well-known CARREFOUR trademark, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. ...
2020-07-01 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical and confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights
The Complainant sets out that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...The Panel also accepts that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark COMERICA, in which the Complainant has rights. ...
2020-05-18 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The term “dtcc” is the essential part of numerous trademarks of the Complainant which are registered in several countries.
The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks in which the Complainant enjoys substantial goodwill.
In the present case, the Panel does not hesitate to decide that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the registered trademarks DTCC.
...
2020-06-10 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant clearly has rights in the DISCOVER trademark. The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the DISCOVER 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. ...
2021-01-07 - Case Details
To summarize the Complaint, the Complainant is the owner of registration for the trademark HUGO, in respect of financial services. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark owned by the Complainant. By registering the Domain Name that comprises the Complainant’s HUGO trademark in its entirety, with the mere addition of the term “enterise” (a misspelling of “enterprise”), the Respondent has created a domain name that is 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. ...
2021-02-22 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name is “identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights”.
...D2020-0163 (holding is confusingly similar to WHATSAPP).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights, and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2020-07-31 - Case Details
D2015-0697, so that this is not the first time the Respondent registered domain names confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
Hence the Respondent registered the disputed domain name solely with the purpose of obtaining a domain name confusingly similar to the ARMOX trademark in order to confuse Internet users as to the origin of the website content or the affiliation of the Respondent with the Complainant.
...Michael Robertson,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0009).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Two requirements must be satisfied under the first element of the Policy, (a) the Complainant must prove that it has rights in a trademark and (b) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to this trademark.
...
2016-10-05 - Case Details
Thus, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark REPETTO.
2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...The Respondent has created a disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark REPETTO with the knowledge of the Complainant's world-wide famous brand and its business. ...
2018-09-13 - Case Details
The onus of proving these elements is on the Complainant.
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 a name, trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...With the addition of the distinguishing terms in the Trade Mark, the Panel considers that CHURCHILL ISLAND HERITAGE FARM & FUNCTIONS AUSTRALIA is not confusingly similar to Churchill Island Café.
The Disputed Domain Name is not confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. ...
2016-06-08 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's BHP trademarks. The disputed domain name includes BHP mark in its entirety. ...In other words, Respondent has, through the use of a confusingly similar domain name and webpage contents, created a likelihood of confusion with the BHP marks. ...
2017-08-03 - Case Details
Complainant contends the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered WEWORK Marks.
Complainant asserts Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...Complainant further contends the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the WEWORK trademarks, and given the fame of Complainant’s marks, consumers are likely to believe that the disputed domain name is related to or associated with Complainant. ...
2019-08-26 - Case Details
On November 18, 2003, Respondent registered the confusingly similar domain name , on November 24, 2003, the Respondent registered the confusingly similar domain name and on September 30, 2004, the Respondent registered the confusingly similar domain name to disrupt Complainant’s business and to attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s websites or other on-line locations, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s websites or locations or of a product or service on the websites or locations.
...Each of Respondent’s three disputed domain names is confusingly similar to Complainant’s service mark, and Complainant thus establishes the first element of its case.
...
2005-07-25 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
(i) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the MELALEUCA mark because the term “mela” serves as a source identifier for the Complainant's products and services. ...Gamlebyen Invest AS,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1677 (finding confusingly similar to the COCACOLA mark despite the addition of “drinks”); America Online, Inc., supra (finding confusingly similar to the ICQ mark despite the addition of “roaming”); Mastercard International Incorporated v. ...
2009-03-20 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that:
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's MASTERCARD trade marks
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the MASTERCARD mark because it incorporates the entirety of the Complainant's MASTERCARD mark. ...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 Complainants' trademark or service mark.
...
2009-03-05 - Case Details