By incorporating the MARLBORO trademark with the mere addition of the words “cigarettes” and “discount”, Respondent clearly adopted a domain name that is confusingly similar to the MARLBORO trademarks.
The addition of the generic top-level domain name “.com” is irrelevant when determining whether a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a protected mark.
...It is well established that domain suffixes are disregarded for the purpose of this comparison.
The disputed domain name is therefore confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MARLBORO trademark.
The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2005-05-03 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
(a) Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant contends that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark AEROMAR.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established its trademark rights in AEROMAR as evidenced by the trademark registrations submitted with the Complaint, namely Mexican Registration Nos . 363166; 359647; 668095; 25842; 887352; 887764; and U.S. ...
2010-03-24 - Case Details
Policy, paragraph 4(a).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has provided evidence of its prior rights to the TIFFANY Mark, used by Complainant and its licensees for retail sale of jewelry and other goods. ...Complainant's TIFFANY Mark is the dominant portion of the Domain Name, which is therefore likely to be confusingly similar to the mark. Tiffany (NJ) LLC and Tiffany and Company v. Jack Gogle,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0188. ...
2009-06-23 - Case Details
Policy, paragraph 4(a).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant's TIFFANY Mark is the dominant portion of the Domain Name, which is therefore likely to be confusingly similar to the mark. ...The Panel finds that the Domain Name in this case is confusingly similar to the TIFFANY Mark in which Complainant has rights, and that the Complainant has therefore established the first element of its claim, pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2009-06-19 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
(a) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark PRINTEMPS, which is the subject of French trademark registration No. 93469236 and Community trademark registration No. 001754282 dated respectively April 22, 1993 and July 13, 2000.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights in the trademark PRINTEMPS by virtue of its French trademark registration No. 93469236 and Community trademark registration no. 001754282.
...
2009-06-18 - Case Details
The Complainant contends the following:
- the disputed domain name (composed of the words “highroller” and “microgaming”) is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks. The combination of the word “microgaming” with the words “high” and “roller” creates a domain name that cannot be anything but confusingly similar to the Complainat's well-known trademarks;
- the addition of a generic word is insufficient to give any distinctiveness to the domain name, with the conclusion that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks of the Complainant...Only someone who was familiar with the Complainant's marks would have registered the confusingly similar domain name (see Aventis, Aventis Pharma SA. v. John Smith,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0850; AT&T Corp. v. ...
2009-11-20 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant holds several ZYPREXA trademark registrations, including a Canadian registration (no. 811,147). ...For the purpose of assessing whether the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the ZYPREXA trademark in which the Complainant has rights, the “.com” suffix is disregarded, it being a necessary component of a domain name. ...
2008-02-28 - Case Details
Further, this Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is substantially identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s VALIUM word mark because it fully incorporates that mark. See PepsiCo, Inc. v. ...D2001-1184 (use of short phrases with widely-known mark still found confusingly similar to that mark).
For these reasons, the Panel concludes that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the VALIUM mark, a widely-known trademark in which Complainant has rights.
...
2007-07-05 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(a) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark LIME WIRE & Design. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established its rights in the LIME WIRE trademark, by virtue of U.S. ...
2007-10-15 - Case Details
This Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is substantially identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s VALIUM word mark because it fully incorporates that mark. See PepsiCo, Inc. v. ...D2001-1184 (use of short phrases with widely-known mark still found confusingly similar to that mark).
For these reasons, the Panel concludes that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the VALIUM mark, a widely-known trademark in which Complainant has rights.
...
2007-08-15 - Case Details
D2005-0831 (finding confusingly similar to complainant’s GILEAD SCIENCES name and mark); Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Kumar Patel, FA 642141 (NAF April 6, 2006) (finding confusingly similar to complainant’s AUXILIUM name and mark).
...Forum May 27, 2003): “The addition of a top-level domain is irrelevant when establishing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar, because top-level domains are a required element of every domain name”.
The Panel has no hesitation in finding that the disputed domain name is identical to the PLATINUM MASTERCARD mark and is confusingly similar to the MASTERCARD mark.
...
2007-07-12 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has registered trademarks for both AMBIEN and ACOMPLIA. Examples are the registrations in Australia for AMBIEN and Japan for ACOMPLIA. The addition of a generic word and a gLTD to a registered trademark has long been accepted by WIPO UDRP domain name panelists as indicating that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark in question.
Equally, typosquatting, the use of a slight misspelling of a trademark name, still results in the domain name being confusingly similar to the trademark concerned.
...
2005-12-01 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant’s submissions can be summarized as follows:
(a) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name contains the Complainant’s trade-mark, MODERN BRIDE followed by the word “magazine”, and therefore, it is virtually identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade-mark.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first issue in this matter is whether the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks. ...
2006-08-02 - Case Details
The domain name is phonetically identical and in other respects confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered marks.
In AT&T Corp. v. Ondonk Partners, (WIPO
Case No. ...D2000-0249) the Administrative Panel has found the letters "ATT"
to be confusingly similar to AT&T mark.
There is no doubt that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant. ...
2003-04-07 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant owns rights in the TELEVISA and ESMAS marks which have not been denied by the Respondent...Therefore, Respondent's domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's TELEVISA marks.
- .
As to the TLD can again be left aside. ...
2003-06-04 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-05-21 - Case Details
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. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-05-18 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Domain Name is Confusingly Similar to the PLAYBOY Marks
Complainant asserts that the Domain Name is clearly similar - in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression- to the PLAYBOY mark. ...The onus of proving these elements is on Complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element, Complainant must have rights in a trademark or service mark, and the Domain Name must be identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark or service mark.
...
2012-05-04 - Case Details
It also notes that numerous UDRP panels have found that a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in those circumstances and that the addition of the generic numbers “88” does not serve to distinguish the Disputed Domain Name. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark MARLBORO in which the Complainant has rights. ...
2015-03-13 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To satisfy the first UDRP element, a domain name must be “identical or confusingly similar” to a trademark, in which a complainant has rights. The record confirms that the Complainant owns the registered trademark MONDOMIX, so the Complainant proved that it has rights in the trademark.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MONDOMIX trademark because it fully incorporates the MONDOMIX trademark. ...
2015-04-14 - Case Details