The third element a complainant must establish is that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and hence the first element of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...
2020-01-20 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks. It is visually and phonetically similar and almost identical to Complainant’s INTACCT marks. ...Moreover, domain names that incorporate the entirety of a trademark are typically considered confusingly similar for the purposes of UDRP standing. See Covance, Inc. and Covance Laboratories Ltd. v. ...
2018-08-01 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark LOJAS RENNER. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has established that it has rights in its trademark LOJAS RENNER. ...
2017-02-01 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name pairs the Complainant’s well-known WAL-MART trademark with the term “unique offers”. ...Other panels have found confusing similarity under similar circumstances. See, e.g., Parfums Christian Dior v. 1 Netpower, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0022 ( and confusingly similar to CHRISTIAN DIOR); Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc. v. ...
2008-02-18 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that:
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's PLAYBOY trademarks
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's PLAYBOY trademarks because it incorporates the PLAYBOY trademark precisely and merely adds the generic term “relax”. ...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 Complainant's trademark or service mark.
...
2009-03-04 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is convinced that the Complainant has established that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's earlier registered trademark MENTOS. ...Finally, the addition of the top-level domain name “.mobi” is irrelevant when determining whether a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a protected trademark.
In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered trademark MENTOS.
...
2009-09-02 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent contends that the domain name at issue is not confusingly similar to Complainant's ACTIVIA marks, since when the logos of the two enterprises are compared they are clearly distinguishable. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Where a domain name incorporates the complainant's mark in its entirety, the domain name is generally confusingly similar to the complainant's mark, despite the addition of other words in the domain name and despite the fact that common words may be appended or common words inserted therein. ...
2009-01-14 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The addition of further words as prefix or suffix respectively to a word constituting the Complainant’s mark has not removed the confusing similarity of each of the domain names to the mark VALIUM.
...D2004-0589, the panel expressed the view that ‘no good faith
can be assumed in Respondent’s conduct, in view of the fact that the Domain
Name is confusingly similar with Complainant’s trademark and is used in
connection with the promotion and sale of competing products’.
...
2007-05-11 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
1. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant owns US federal trademark registrations for the marks ZIONS, ZIONS BANK, and ZIONSBANK.COM for its banking services.
...See Rules, paragraph 14(b).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established its rights in the marks ZIONS, ZIONS BANK, and ZIONSBANK.COM by virtue of the evidence of its US federal trademark registrations.
...
2014-06-27 - Case Details
In addition, the Panel finds that the combination of the identical term “Saks” together with a term that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s OFF 5TH and SAKS FIFTH AVENUE trademarks is confusingly similar.
The Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks for the purposes of the Policy.
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has chosen not to reply to the Complaint. ...
2013-08-13 - Case Details
None of these integers alone would preclude the disputed Domain Name from being confusingly similar [.….]
Considering the disputed Domain Name as a whole, the combined effect of the differences does not alter the conclusion that it is confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered trademarks. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered trademark rights.”
For these reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.
...
2010-02-15 - Case Details
Further, the Complainant has a number of registered trade mark rights in the term “IWC”.
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the IWC trade mark. Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark 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. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark and, therefore, the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...
2013-02-27 - Case Details
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the burden of proof with regard to these elements lies with the Complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This question raises two issues: (1) does Complainant have rights in a trademark or service mark; and (2) is the disputed domain name identical or confusingly similar to such trademark or service mark.
...The Panel also finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark. The disputed domain name includes Complainant’s trademark, but has simply added an “o” after “rb”, and the term “scolanduk.” ...
2012-11-14 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(a) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the domain names and are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks listed above.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. The Complainant has therefore satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2010-11-29 - Case Details
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The evidence presented by the Complainant demonstrates that Complainant’s trademark
TOYOTA has long been a federally registered trademark in the United States.
...Because both marks are protectable marks and designs, the Panel next looks
to whether the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the service marks. The
Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical
to Complainant’s service mark TOYOTA FINANCIAL SERVICES and is confusingly similar
to Complainant’s mark TOYOTA.
...
2001-07-13 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts, inter alia, as follows:
(i) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the MICROSOFT Mark.
(ii) The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s website addresses incorporating the MICROSOFT Mark.
...The Domain Name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s distinctive trademark
and as such creates sufficient similarity to be confusingly similar (see Section 4(a)
of the Policy).
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s trademark pursuant to the Policy Paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2004-03-10 - Case Details
In relation to element (i), the Complainant contends that the domain name in question is confusingly similar to the "Philips" trademark registered by the Complainant. Addition of the word "calculator" does not make dissimilar to "Philips", in fact, it is extremely similar. ...They indicate a relationship between the Complainant’s mark and the domain name in question. There is no doubt that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant. The Administrative Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to the registered trademark of the Complainant.
...
2003-01-13 - Case Details
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant has well-established rights in the world famous and highly distinctive COCA-COLA trademark. ...Based on this analysis, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s well-known COCA-COLA trademark.
Because the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the COCA-COLA trademark of Complainant, the Panel considers that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2012-08-31 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in the HERNO trade mark, based on its various trade mark registrations.
...Accordingly, the Panel therefore finds that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s HERNO trade mark, and accordingly, paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2020-03-19 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant submits that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its A.S. ROMA ("ASROMA") trademarks, in particular as it contains the well-known ASROMA trademark in its entirety. ...The fact that the trademarks of Complainant have periods and spaces is irrelevant in finding that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks of Complainant.
The Panel finds that Complainant has proven that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademarks.
...
2016-01-12 - Case Details