A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP, the Complainant must prove that the Domain Names are
identical or confusingly similar to the 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...
2023-08-09 - Case Details
As such, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
Trademarks, and accordingly, paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-05-15 - Case Details
A complainant must prove each of these three
elements to succeed.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant clearly has rights in its FERM LIVING word and device trademarks.
...The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the FERM LIVING trademark for the purposes of
the Policy and thus paragraph 4(a)(i) (of the Policy) has been established.
...
2023-06-13 - Case Details
To summarize the Complaint, the Complainant is the owner of registration for the trademark TELFAR, in
respect of bags. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark owned by the Complainant. By
registering the Domain Name that comprises the Complainant’s TELFAR trademark in its entirety, with the
mere addition of the term “bagg” the Respondent has created a domain name that is confusingly similar to
the Complainant’s trademark. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-05-01 - Case Details
As already stated, the disputed domain name makes unauthorized use of a sign confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s registered BRITANNIC trademarks, in direct contravention of the Complainant’s rights in them.
...In view of the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the well-known
and widely used Complainant’s BRITANNIC trademarks, in which the Complainant has rights. ...
2024-08-23 - 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
b) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Mark.
(c) Additional confusion results from the fact that the disputed domain name resolves to rotating websites that provide services that are similar to the financial services provided by the Complainant. ...iii) That the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its mark for the following reasons;
a) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the dominant portion of the Complainant’s mark COMERICA.
...
2014-08-28 - Case Details