Considering these requirements, the Panel rules as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain name is identical
or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...It has also been established by
prior UDRP panels that incorporating a trademark in its entirety into a domain name can be sufficient to
establish that the domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark (see, for example, section 1.7 of the
WIPO Overview 3.0).
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s VEOLIA marks.
...
2022-07-01 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights over the trademark SODEXO based on the
trademark registration submitted to the Complaint.
...The Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark
for the purposes of the Policy.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the disputed domain name is confusingly
similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has established rights according to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the
Policy.
...
2022-11-15 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element that the Complainant must establish is that the disputed domain name is identical or
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
...The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark
GROUPE SEB since it merely reproduces the GROUPE SEB trademark with the addition of the final letter
“e”. ...
2022-12-23 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The evidence presented in the Complaint demonstrates that the Complainant is the owner of trademark
registrations for TRAVIS SCOTT in different jurisdictions.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Also, as numerous prior UDRP panels have recognized, the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety or a dominant feature of a trademark is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark. ...
2022-12-02 - Case Details
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 names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...This means that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark and hence the first element of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...
2021-12-13 - Case Details
It contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Mark since it incorporates the Mark in its entirety with the addition of an extra “z” at the end of the second level, under the country-code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.co” (to which the Policy applies, unamended).
...The failure of the Complainant to prove any one of these elements means the Complaint must be denied.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant is the owner of, and therefore has rights in, the Mark.
...
2021-12-13 - Case Details
Then, Complainants make the following contentions.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainants claim that the disputed domain name is “virtually” identical and hence confusingly similar to Complainants’ trademarks THALES and THALES ALENIA SPACE. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires Complainants to show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to trademarks registered by Complainants.
...
2021-11-22 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant owns the trademark RYDER CUP, registered as Community Trademark Registration No. 4512349. ...The Panel finds that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark rights when he registered a confusingly similar domain name, and when began operating a website in connection with that confusingly similar domain name which provides travel agency and golf tournament organizing services which are identical and in direct competition to that of the Complainant’s services.
...
2011-05-26 - Case Details
D2001-0327 ().
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the use of the phrase “porn for a” as a prefix to the Complainant’s mark COKE could only be a reference to the Complainant’s drink product. ...In the circumstances the Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name, on its face, is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark.
The Panel concludes that the Complainant has established the first element of the Policy.
...
2011-02-16 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends, in relevant part, as follows:
The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the B&H Trademarks because the Disputed Domain Name “simply replaced the ampersand” in the trademark with the word “and.”
...Policy, paragraph 4(a).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based upon the trademark registrations cited by Complainant, it is obvious that Complainant has rights in the B&H Trademarks, and Respondent does not dispute the validity of the B&H Trademarks.
...
2011-02-15 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The use of the Complainant’s world renowned mark LEGO as the initial four characters of the disputed domain name makes the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. ...D2003-0112, it was held that a mere combination of two separate trademarks, is to be considered confusingly similar to each of the asserted trademarks.
In LEGO Juris A/S v. Nasirudin, EazySmart.com,
WIPO Case No. ...
2011-09-09 - Case Details
Tool Gopher,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0330)( confusingly similar to CHICAGO PNEUMATIC trademark); Shaw Industries Group, Inc. and Columbia Insurance Company v. ...D2011-1312 ( registered by the same respondent as in the instant case, confusingly similar to the TWO MEN AND A TRUCK trademark).
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark in which the Complainant has prior rights, and that the Complainant has thus established the first element, pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2012-02-01 - Case Details
The addition of a generic top-level domain name extension such as “.com” is irrelevant when determining whether a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a protected trademark. The addition of the term “perfume” does nothing to render the disputed domain name any less identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark CURVE.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel has no doubt that “curve” is a term directly connected with the Complainant’s activities in the beauty industry.
...
2012-10-19 - Case Details
Having considered the Complaint and the available evidence, the Panel finds the following:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry – a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trade mark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trade mark.
...D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar; see also Westfield Corp. v. Hobbs,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0227 (WIPO May 18, 2000) finding the domain name confusingly similar to the registered WESTFIELD trade mark).
...
2012-08-31 - Case Details
The Domain Name is also confusingly similar to the Complainant’s domain name .
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Doman Name. ...A complainant must prove each of these three elements.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first question to consider is whether the Complainant has rights for the purposes of the Policy.
...
2012-11-08 - Case Details
Having considered the Complaint and the available evidence, the Panel finds the following:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry – a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trade mark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trade mark.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2013-02-13 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its CLEAR trademark. ...D2001-0032 ( and confusingly similar to LEXUS). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name, which pairs the CLEAR trademark with the less distinctive terms “internet” and “city,” is confusingly similar to the Complainant's CLEAR trademark.
...
2010-06-17 - Case Details
See paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established its rights in the mark DIOR through its trademark registrations.
...The Panel is of the view that, as a general matter, a domain name is likely to be confusingly similar to a mark if it incorporates the mark or a variation of the mark.2 The Panel finds that Complainant has established that the domain name is confusingly similar to its DIOR mark. ...
2013-04-08 - Case Details
Having considered the Complaint and the available evidence, the Panel finds the following:
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 trade mark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trade mark.
...The Panel has already found the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark. The Panel finds that the likelihood of confusion as to the source is therefore highly likely. ...
2014-06-12 - Case Details
The Panel will deal with each of these requirements in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element, the Complainant must first establish that there is a trademark or service mark in which it has rights. ...D2005-0890, where the domain name was held to be confusingly similar to the trademark PORSCHE).
Accordingly, the Complainant has made out the first of the three elements that it must establish.
...
2014-06-06 - Case Details