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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
In this case, Complainant has alleged and convincingly demonstrated that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain names in an unfair attempt to profit off of Complainant's well-known FILIPPA K trademark.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain names and Complainant's mark may not be identical twins, but even fraternal twins may be confusingly similar – particularly when both are thin, attractive and clad in FILIPPA K branded outfits. ...DNL2017-0008 (finding to be confusingly similar to the COCCINELLE trademark).
Complainant has established the first element required under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2017-05-26 - 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 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
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 or generic word. ...
2015-12-28 - Case Details
The disputed domain name, , is confusingly similar to Complainant's ZIONS BANK trademark.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established that it owns prior rights in the ZIONS BANK trademark and the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ZIONS BANK trademark.
...
2016-06-08 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established that it has rights to the trademark LINKEDIN.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark LINKEDIN in which the Complainant has rights and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy therefore are fulfilled.
...
2018-04-23 - 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.
...Second, the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known trademark is sufficient evidence of bad faith registration and use. ...
2017-09-12 - Case Details