In the case at hand, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the CIALIS mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety. With the exception of the descriptive word “great” the Domain Name consists of the Complainant’s CIALIS mark. ...The Panel finds that the Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint within the stipulated time and, as such, does not contest the facts asserted by the Complainant in the Complaint.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name at issue, , registered and used by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CIALIS mark registered
worldwide and used for its pharmaceutical products.
...
2006-11-24 - Case Details
D2004-0218 the panel found that, “[t]he domain names and are confusingly similar to [the COSTCO] mark in which Complainants have rights.” In Costco Wholesale Membership Inc., Costco Wholesale Corporation v. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Very extensive use has been made by the Complainant of the COSTCO trade mark since its business commenced in 1983. ...
2011-09-30 - Case Details
AAIM,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0403.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy the Complainant must establish rights in a trademark and secondly that the domain name in dispute is confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...Ltd., “it is well- established under the Policy that a domain name composed of a trademark coupled with a generic term still is confusingly similar to the trademark”. The addition of “.com” is irrelevant. Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady,
WIPO Case No. ...
2007-06-19 - Case Details
The Complainant further contends that the disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar because it consists of generic words such as “stylo” and “soldes” which are French words for “pen” which the Complainant sells and “sales”. ...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 well-known MONTBLANC mark; a mark globally known, in the manufacture and sale of luxury writing instruments industry since 1906. ...
2013-07-30 - Case Details
The Respondent has failed to file a formal reply in these proceedings and is therefore in default and the Panel may draw 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 light of the foregoing, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2012-08-02 - Case Details
The TLD suffix is irrelevant when assessing whether a trademark and disputed domain name are identical or confusingly similar (see Missoni S.p.A v. CoAustio,
WIPO Case No. DCO2010-0047).
Therefore, the disputed domain is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks as it is virtually identical to the Complainant’s registered trademarks. ...Therefore, a substantial part of the disputed domain name is confusingly similar, if not identical, to the Complainant’s trademarks.
Furthermore, where a domain name incorporates a complainant’s well-known and distinctive trademark in its entirety, it is considered to be confusingly similar to the mark (see Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. bmwcar.com,
WIPO Case No. ...
2011-06-17 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts that;
(1) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which it has rights.
In support of this contention the Complainant explains that previous panels in UDRP proceedings in which it has been a Complainant have considered its trade mark MICHELIN to be famous and that it may be sufficient for the incorporation of its trade mark in its entirety into a domain name to establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trade mark.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The evidence of trade mark registrations for MICHELIN submitted by the Complainant establish that it has rights in the name MICHELIN, which comprises the second level of the disputed domain name.
...
2013-10-16 - Case Details
D2000-1293).
The disputed domain names are inherently confusingly similar to the trademark ALLSTATE, graphically and phonetically, because they consist of the trademark ALLSTATE per se, with the repetitions of the letters mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
...Therefore this Panel finds that the disputed domain names , , , and are confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark ALLSTATE. The first requirement of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...
2011-03-16 - Case Details
Complainant
(1) The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's marks.
Complainant was established in 1957 as “The Consumers' Association,” which began publishing the consumer magazine WHICH?. ...Nor has Respondent provided any evidence on the issue of bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant must establish that the disputed domain name is either identical or confusingly similar to its mark. ...
2010-06-21 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent’s contentions are as follows.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Respondent does not dispute that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. ...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 Names are identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.
...
2014-10-29 - Case Details
The Complaint may only be granted if each of the above criteria are met.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks and service marks of the Complainant.
...This is typically sufficient to satisfy the requirement that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights (see also Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-04-20 - Case Details
D2006-0979 (domain name confusingly similar to complainant’s SANDS mark); Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. v. Zaynel Demirtas,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0768 ( domain name confusingly similar to complainant’s PLAYBOY mark).
Therefore, the Panel finds that all three disputed domain names are confusingly similar to at least one of the Complainant’s VOLKSWAGEN and VW marks and that both of the disputed domain names, and , are also confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CALIFORNIA mark. ...
2014-04-03 - Case Details
The Complainant further contends that the mere addition of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) suffix “.mobi” or “.org” are irrelevant because the gTLD suffix is not a distinctive element when assessing whether the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. As a consequence, the Complainant claims that the disputed domain names and are confusingly similar to its trademarks CREDIT MUTUEL.
...For all the above cited reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, in which the Complainant has rights, and therefore the condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is fulfilled.
...
2012-11-20 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s famous registered trademark BAYLINER. The disputed domain name combines the terms “bayliner” and “Brasil.”. ...D2000-0150 ( found confusingly similar to WAL-MART trademark).
It is also a well-established rule that in making an enquiry as to whether a trademark is identical or confusingly similar to a domain name, the gTLD, in this case “.com”, may be disregarded (Rohde & Schwartz GmbH & Co. ...
2014-02-21 - Case Details
D2008-0733 (finding to be confusingly similar to the TEREX mark, and stating, “[i]t has long been held that the addition of a generic or descriptive term to a mark will not alter the fact that the domain name at issue is confusingly similar to the mark in question.”); and Sears Brands, LLC v. Alex Pachan, NAF Claim No. 420527 (finding to be confusingly similar to the SEARS mark).
Therefore, the Panel rules that the Complainant has demonstrated that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2015-03-31 - Case Details
The Respondents domain name was registered on January 8, 2003.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Confusingly Similar
The Complainant submits that each of the domain names in dispute registered by the Respondent are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and service mark KAZAA. ...The presence of a suffix does not prevent
a finding of confusingly similar, see Yahoo! Inc. v. Jorge O Kirovsky,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0428. Furthermore,
the addition of the generic top level domain name “.com” does not
avoid a finding of confusingly similar, see J. ...
2004-07-30 - Case Details
In most of these cases, Panels have concluded that the domain names were confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. More particularly, see:
Societé Air France v. Virtual Dates, Inc., WIPO
Case No. ...However, that does not mean that the composite domain name can never be “confusingly similar” to the trademark at issue.
The Complainant has pointed out that not all users are familiar with English. ...
2007-05-16 - Case Details
Additionally, “[i]n the cybersquatting context, ‘confusingly similar’ must simply mean that the mark and the domain name are so similar in sight, sound or meaning that they could be confused.” ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established that it has substantial rights in the LQ and LA QUINTA trademarks.
...
2010-11-05 - Case Details
Michael Robertson,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0009).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel agrees with Complainant’s allegation that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s VRBO mark.
...WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third
Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7 (where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark,
the domain name will normally be considered by UDRP panels to be confusingly similar).
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
...
2023-02-07 - Case Details
By registering the disputed domain names which are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark
CAMCONTACTS the Respondent was targeting the Complainant and its business. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-11-02 - Case Details