Complainant
Complainant asserts that Respondent has registered and used the domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to the MEXSANA family of marks, which Complainant asserts includes its MEXANA mark. Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the MEXSANA mark. Even Respondent noted the similarity. ...
2014-04-10 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant clearly has rights in the mark MASTERCARD, based on its long and extensive use and ownership of numerous trademark registrations worldwide.
The domain name is identical or at least confusingly similar to the MASTERCARD mark because it merely inserts two hyphens between “master” and “card”. ...
2007-09-13 - Case Details
Many UDRP panels have found that a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s
trademark for purposes of the first element, where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed
domain name. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-04-27 - 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. ...Further, “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.” ...
2025-04-11 - Case Details
With this history in mind, it is clear that the
Respondent seeks to circumvent the previous UDRP decisions by choosing the confusingly similar Disputed
Domain Name and redirecting visitors to its website.
The Respondent was well aware of the Complainant’s rights and still chooses a confusingly similar domain
name after losing two prior UDRP proceedings. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has properly asserted its rights in the IMC Trademark due to the long use and number of
registrations globally.
...
2022-10-27 - Case Details
It is not a good faith offering of goods or services under the Policy to adopt a domain name which is
confusingly similar to another trader’s trademark especially where the intended use lies in connection with
the same or similar goods or services. Correspondingly, it is not a legitimate noncommercial or other fair use
of a confusingly similar disputed domain name to adopt it effectively for use in competition with the trademark
owner.
...
2024-10-10 - 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. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. ...
2024-09-23 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant insists that that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered
trademarks, in that the disputed domain name leads with its OLYMPIC mark and that the contents of the
website to which the disputed domain name previously resolved, included linked five circles extremely similar
to Complainant’s trademarked five links symbol. ...Ahmed Syed, AdvertisingPulse
Case No. D2022-0228
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith...
2022-03-16 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s distinctive trademark MICHELIN with the letter “e” replaced by the letter “a”, followed by the word “tires”, and the gTLD “.com”.
...For all these reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is not called “Michalintires” or anything similar. ...
2022-03-22 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s trademark, with the insertion of the letter “u” between the letters “car” and “van” and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. ...For all these reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is not called “caruvana” or anything similar. ...
2021-04-13 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established that it has valid rights in the COOL HAND and COOL HAND POKER (logo) trademarks.
The domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks since the addition of one letter, “c”, does not alter the similarity to the otherwise similar word element of the COOL HAND POKER (logo) trademark. ...
2011-11-21 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its own NATWEST trademark.
In furtherance of this contention the Complainant argues 4 points:
a) the disputed domain name is comprised of the dominant “Ntwest” element which is confusingly similar with its NATWEST trade mark;
b) that the inclusion of the “co-uk” suffix element in the disputed domain name, before the “.com” generic top level domain (gTLD), does not operate to distinguish an otherwise deceptively similar mark which takes as its main element an established trademark and cites Porsche AG v. ...In particular the Panel accepts that:
a) the principal element in the disputed domain name is the “ntwest” component which is closely similar to the Complainant’s mark NETWEST and notes the many instances where such features in “typosquatting” cases considered under the UDRP have been found to be confusingly similar;
b) the “co-uk” element and the “.com” gTLD are to be read down or disregarded in the analysis. ...
2013-01-04 - Case Details
It is also clear that by virtue of its widespread and long-standing use and the repute of the IWC Trademark that an unrelated entity or person using a similar domain name is likely to lead to members of the public being confused and deceived.
Complainant argues that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its IWC Trademark, in that it consists of the IWC Trademark with the addition of the generic term “replica”, and the gTLD “.org”. ...On this basis the Panel finds:
a) Complainant has rights in respect of the IWC Trademark.
b) The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the IWC Trademark.
Accordingly, the Panel is satisfied that the first element of the Policy has been met.
...
2013-03-11 - Case Details
Under the Policy this is sufficient to establish
that the domain name in dispute is identical or confusingly similar. See Magnum
Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjocker and Garwood S. Wilson Sr.,
WIPO Case No. ...D2000-0273 where
the panel found that the combination of Complainant’s mark YAHOO with
a number of generic words such as a city name or abbreviations for a country
name, gave rise to a domain name that was confusingly similar to the registered
mark of the Complainant.
The Panel concludes that the domain name in dispute is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered mark.
...
2007-04-04 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is identical and/or confusingly similar with PIRELLI Marks because it wholly incorporates the dominant part of such marks, namely the wording “Pirelli”.
...Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark 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. ...
2014-07-02 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
A. 1. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant states that the disputed domain name owned by Respondent is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark ARCTIC SPAS. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant must establish rights in a trademark and, secondly, that the disputed domain name is identical to or confusingly similar to the trademark in which Complainant has rights.
...
2012-11-20 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant must establish rights in a trademark and secondly that the disputed domain names are identical to or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...Many UDRP decisions have found that domain names are confusingly similar to trademarks when the disputed domain name incorporates the trademark in its entirety. ...
2013-05-07 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainants must establish rights in a trademark and secondly prove that the domain name in dispute is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainants have rights.
...Numerous UDRP panels have held that a domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark when the domain name incorporates the mark in its entirety. See, e.g., Am. ...
2007-11-01 - Case Details
D2000-1610 (January 24, 2001), (domain name
was confusingly similar where it was identical to the Complainant’s mark WRAL-TV5,
and domain name was confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark
WRAL 5 where it was virtually identical to Complainant’s mark but for the lack
of a space between the "L" and the "5").
...D2000-1610, (January 24, 2001)).
The domain name in dispute is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s common law trademarks. The domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks KIRO, KIRO7 and KIRO 7. ...
2002-04-05 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(1) Identical or confusingly similar
Complainant contends that the Domain Name, , is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE trademark. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel must first determine whether the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE trademark. ...
2014-07-01 - Case Details