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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
...D2004-0117 (a domain name incorporating a well-known trademark combined with a geographically descriptive term is confusingly similar to the trademark); Inter-IKEA Systems B.V. v. Hoon Huh,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0438 (the addition of the term “korea” in does not prevent the domain name from being confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark).
...
2014-09-09 - 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
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant relies on its common law rights to USALLIANCE, and its trademark registration for the mark USALLIANCE Design under US Trademark Registration No. 2,526,435.
...The Panel further finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the Complainant’s registered trademark USALLIANCE Design and its trade name USAlliance. ...
2015-11-20 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well established that generic Top-Level Domains ("gTLDs"), such as ".com", may typically be disregarded in the assessment under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy (e.g., Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...In this light it is not sufficient to merely repeat that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar and has no connection to the Respondent's name (which the Complaint already stated as circumstances why the first and second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy were met). ...
2015-11-06 - 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
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