The Panel is satisfied that the registrant of record for the Domain Name is Respondent and will therefore proceed to analyze whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied by Complainant in this proceeding.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant must establish rights in a trademark and secondly that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
...Many UDRP decisions have found that a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark where the disputed domain name incorporates the complainant’s mark in its entirety. ...
2012-02-21 - Case Details
The Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name is subject to the control of the Respondent and will therefore 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, the Complainant must establish rights in a trademark and secondly that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...Many UDRP panels have found that a domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark where the domain name incorporates the complainant’s mark in its entirety. ...
2012-02-16 - Case Details
The Panel is satisfied that the Domain Name is subject to the control of Respondent and will therefore proceed to analyze whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied by the Complainant in this proceeding.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant must establish rights in a trademark and secondly that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
...Many UDRP decisions have found that a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark where the disputed domain name incorporates the complainant’s mark in its entirety. ...
2012-02-15 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends that is confusingly similar to Dell’s family of DELL marks and domain names, including DELL4ME and , asserting: “If a domain name incorporates a famous mark in its entirety, ‘it is confusingly similar to that mark despite the addition of other words.’” ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s DELL4ME and DELL marks. ...
2005-03-02 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
The Domain Name is Confusingly Similar to Complainant's Mark
With respect to this issue, the Complainant asserts that the contested domain name is confusingly similar to its mark since it combines the UPMC trademark with the generic term “nursing,” which is closely associated with the Complainant and the services it provides.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name is virtually identical to the Complainant's UPMC mark. ...
2008-08-29 - Case Details
- Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s famous registered YAHOO! service and trademarks.
- Respondent is not and has never been a licensee of Complainant. ...The Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks and service marks (See, e.g., Yahoo!Inc. & GeoCities v. DataArt Corp. et al., WIPO Case No. ...
2001-02-06 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it is the owner of registered trademark rights in the mark ONLYFANS.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-03-15 - Case Details
The Panel therefore considers all of the aforementioned disputed domain
names confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark for MODERNA.
As to the disputed domain names and , the Panel refers to the WIPO
Overview 3.0, section 1.9, which states: “[a] domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or
intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark
for purposes of the first element”. ...Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names are all confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s trademark and finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of the first element
under the Policy.
...
2022-08-30 - Case Details
The Complainant considers that
the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademark. The “AISTOM” element
is confusingly similar to the term “ALSTOM”. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-01-05 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To satisfy this element, the Panel must find that (1) Complainant has demonstrated its rights in the BSI mark; and (2) the disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark.
...As discussed above, Respondent has selected a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark. Respondent used the Domain Name to operate a website that offered what appeared to be banking and other financial services that were similar or identical to Complainant's services. ...
2009-05-06 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel finds the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the ROLAND
GARROS Mark in which Complainant has rights and Complainant has thus satisfied its burden under
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-07-18 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
ELECTROLUX mark as such incorporates the ELECTROLUX mark in its entirety. ...Thus, the Panel will deal with each of the requirements in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant has to show that the disputed domain name is
(i) identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, (ii) in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2023-05-01 - Case Details
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOOD MYTHICAL MORNING Mark because:
Complainant’s Mark is clearly recognizable within the Domain Name; the Top-Level Domain is generally not
determinative in establishing whether the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark; and
adding the term “merch” (a shortened form of “merchandise”) to the Mark does not prevent a f inding of
confusing similarity with Complainant’s Mark. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-10-30 - Case Details
The Complainant’s rights in the ALTAVISTA mark and confusingly similar variations thereof predate the registration of the Infringing Domain Names by Respondent.
18. ...Confusing Similarity
30. "The Infringing Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ALTAVISTA mark as required by paragraph 4(a)(i) of the ICANN Policy and the NSI Policy.
31. ...
2000-11-15 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is both visually and phonetically similar to the NATIXIS trademarks and therefore is confusingly similar to the Complainant's NATIXIS trademarks. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2017-08-02 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. ...The Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark and the Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2021-09-29 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
1. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SHIPWORKS trademark, which it uses in connection with software and service for managing e-commerce sales transactions, customer records, and shipments. It is also confusingly similar to the domain names that Complainant has registered and uses, including and . ...
2010-09-29 - Case Details
The element ‘fotoboek' should therefore play a less significant role in the comparison. As a result, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the International Trade Mark CEWE.
Secondly, Complainant submitted that the Domain Name is similar to the Community Trade Mark CEWE PHOTOBOOK. ...The second element in the Domain Name, ‘fotoboek' is phonetically and conceptually identical to the second part of said Community Trade Mark. As a result, the Domain Name is confusingly similar. Similar arguments apply in relation to the Community Trade Mark CEWE PHOTOWORLD. According to Complainant the Domain Name is also confusingly similar to this Community Trade Mark.
...
2010-08-02 - Case Details
A complainant must prove each of these three elements.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name in issue is clearly very similar to the trademarks of GPI. It uses the mark GOULDS in its entirety. ...Promoting competing brands using a domain name confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services. There is ample support for this proposition. ...
2007-05-30 - Case Details
The Complainant asserts, without contradiction, that it has not authorized the Respondent’s use of a Domain Name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks.
The Respondent has not come forward with an explanation for his selection of the Domain Name. ...As the Complainant observes, many UDRP decisions find that such use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a trademark is itself an indication of bad faith.
In this case, however, the Domain Name is a sensible English phrase comprised of dictionary words, and it might have been chosen for reasons other than emulation of the Complainant’s similar marks. ...
2008-01-04 - Case Details