Complainant
Complainant submits that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the IPSOS trademark. The Domain
Name entirely and identically reproduces Complainant’s trademark. ...The Panel will proceed to analyze whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied in
this proceeding.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant must first of all establish rights in a trademark or
service mark and secondly that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark or
service mark.
...
2023-09-12 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
registered VENETA CUCINE mark as the Respondent has intentionally registered a confusingly similar
domain name that incorporates the Complainant’s mark in its entirety. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
7. Decision...
2023-05-05 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the ARKEMA trademark.
The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s ARKEMA trademark in its entirety. ...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which the
Complainant has rights. The above requirement provided for in paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is accordingly
satisfied.
...
2023-06-23 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark and, second, is the Disputed Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. ...It is well established that a domain name that wholly incorporates a trademark may be confusingly similar to that trademark for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of a descriptive term. ...
2020-02-13 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark and, second, is the Disputed Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
...It is well established that a domain name that wholly incorporates a trademark may be confusingly similar to that trademark for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of a descriptive word. ...
2018-07-11 - 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 Complainants establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainants have rights. ...As the disputed domain name includes the Complainants’ trademark in its entirety combined with a descriptive term, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trademark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trademark and hence the first element of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...
2021-01-29 - Case Details
Considering the above the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, therefore, the Complainant has established its case under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...In this case, the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark is used to capitalize on the Internet users’ efforts to find the Complainant and its website and seek employment opportunities with the Complainant. ...
2020-06-18 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark or trademarks and, second, are the Disputed Domain Names identical or confusingly similar to those trademarks.
...First, the registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark by an entity that has no relationship to that mark may be sufficient evidence of bad faith. ...
2020-05-15 - Case Details
D2012-1395, where the domain name was held to be confusingly similar to the KAREN MILLEN trademark; Belstaff S.R.L. v. Jason Lau, Sharing,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0783, where the domain name was held to be confusingly similar to the BELSTAFF trademark; Lime Wire LLC v. ...D2007-1168, where the domain name was held to be confusingly similar to the LIME WIRE trademark).
Additionally, it is well established that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” may be disregarded when considering whether the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2019-10-21 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has established registered rights in its HUDSON trademark, which was registered more than 10 years before the registration of the Disputed Domain Name.
...The Panel also accepts that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to both the Complainant’s registered trademark HUDSON and its unregistered trademark HUDSON RPO. ...
2019-08-19 - Case Details
Moreover, past UDRP panels have found comparable domain names to be confusingly similar to trademarks at issue (e.g., Facebook Inc. v. S. Demir Cilingir,
WIPO Case No. D2018-2746, in which the disputed domain name was held to be confusingly similar to the FACEBOOK trademark; La Française des Jeux v. ...D2007-1101, in which a variety of disputed domain names containing the word “loto” and another word, being one example, were found to be confusingly similar to the LOTO trademark).
Bearing that in mind, the Panel determines that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s FACEBOOK trademarks.
...
2020-06-29 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark and, second, is the Disputed Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. ...Second, the registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a well-known trade mark by an entity that has no relationship to that mark may be sufficient evidence of opportunistic bad faith. ...
2020-06-24 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel determines that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MAGNA INTERNATIONAL trademarks for the reasons below.
...WIPO panels have repeatedly held the use of the generic term “com” does not militate against a finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. See Accor v. David Larson,
WIPO Case No. D2020-1680; Agfa-Gevaert N.V. v. ...
2021-03-04 - Case Details
It is generally regarded as prima facie evidence of no rights or legitimate interests if a complainant shows that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark, that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and that a complainant has not authorized the respondent to use its mark (or an expression which is confusingly similar to its mark), whether in the disputed domain name or otherwise. ...Under these circumstances, the Panel finds that it is implausible to believe that Respondent was not aware of the STARBUCKS Mark when it registered its confusingly similar disputed domain name. Such registration of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s widely-known trademark suggest opportunistic bad faith. ...
2020-09-21 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trade mark. It is well established that where a domain name consists of a clear misspelling of a trade mark such that the mark is recognisable, as in this case, the domain name will be considered confusingly similar. ...Nick Dillman,
WIPO Case No. D2020-1483).
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known, registered mark and the Complainant has certified that the Domain Name is unauthorised by it. ...
2020-11-03 - Case Details
Considering the above the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, therefore, the Complainant has established its case under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...In this case, the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark is used to capitalize on the Internet users’ efforts to find the Complainant and its website and seek employment opportunities with the Complainant. ...
2020-10-19 - Case Details
The Disputed Domain Name was registered on April 11, 2017.
5. Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
Confusingly Similar to a Trademark in which the Complainant has Rights
The Complainants submits that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's MAYR-MELNHOF trademark, in which the Complainant has rights. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has established both registered and common law rights in its MAYR-MELNHOF trademark. ...
2017-12-27 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark and, second, is the Disputed Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
...Second, the registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a trademark by an entity that has no relationship to that mark may be sufficient evidence of opportunistic bad faith. ...
2017-12-27 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that:
- the domain name is confusingly similar with the denomination of origin Spumante Asti it is in fact identical; The Complainant also owns a large number of trademarks incorporating the mark ASTI...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Before applying the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP is must
be noted that the present case is analogous, if not identical, to WIPO
Case No. ...
2004-08-06 - Case Details
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark MICROSOFT.
Hence, Complainant has met its burden of proving that the domain name at issue is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
...The Panel finds it inconceivable that Respondent would have any rights or legitimate interests in the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to such a famous trademark in connection to the marketing of such competing products.
...
2004-07-01 - Case Details