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
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
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
Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, there are two requirements which the Complainant must establish, first
that it has rights in a trademark or service mark, and second that the disputed domain name is identical or
confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-03-08 - Case Details
It is well established that use of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s
mark to host sponsored links or advertisements, is evidence of bad faith. ...A complainant must prove each of
these three elements to succeed.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the owner of the WHATSAPP Mark and thus clearly has rights for the purposes of the
Policy.
...
2023-02-09 - 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
Considering these requirements, the Panel rules as follows:
page 4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel holds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark
VERSANTIS. ...Respondent
7. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel holds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark VERSANTIS. ...
2023-12-21 - 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.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-11-16 - Case Details