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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.” See L’Oréal v. See PrivacyGuardian.org/ CvxzvDFS Dfdsafds,
WIPO Case No. ...In the present case, the Panel must decide whether the Complainant has introduced elements of proof, which allow the Panel to conclude that its allegations are true.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well established in previous UDRP decisions that, where the disputed domain name incorporates a complainant’s registered trademark, this may be sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2021-11-17 - Case Details
Complainant
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the
Complainant has rights.
The Complainant makes the following assertions.
...In the present case, the Panel must decide whether the Complainant has introduced elements of proof,
which allow the Panel to conclude that its allegations are true.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well established in previous UDRP decisions that, where the disputed domain name incorporates a
complainant’s registered trademark, this may be sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2023-02-23 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name is “identical or
confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights”.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name is “identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights”.
...
2023-02-20 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainants contend that the disputed domain name and the CHEVRON trademark are confusingly
similar.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under the first element, the Complainants must establish that the disputed domain name is identical, or
confusingly similar to, the Complainants’ trademark rights.
...
2023-10-12 - Case Details
In the Panel’s view the gTLD “.com” in the disputed domain name does not affect the disputed domain name
for the purpose of determining whether it is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. In view of
the above, and absent any submission of the Respondent, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks EQUIFAX and EQUIFAX CREDIT WATCH, in which the
Complainant has rights.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-08-30 - 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. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-04-04 - Case Details