Further, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, incorporating Complainant’s LESPORTSAC mark entirely while adding the geographic designation “Australia.” ...In summary, Respondent by choosing to register and use the Domain Name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LESPORTSAC mark, intended to ride on the goodwill of Complainant’s mark. ...
2013-03-13 - Case Details
On the first place, before establishing whether or not the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s trademarks, the Panel wants to point out that the addition of a generic Top-Level Domain
(“gTLD”)“.com”, is generally disregarded when determining if the disputed domain name is identical or
confusingly similar to the trademark. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-06-08 - Case Details
While each of those terms, taken alone, may have other associations, there may still be a risk that a portion of the public, familiar with the Complainant, would find these domain names confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark.
In relation to the mark THE ROYAL PLAYA, the Panel finds that it is not confusingly similar to the disputed domain names . ...The Panel does however find that the mark THE ROYAL PLAYA is confusingly similar to the disputed domain names and . ...
2009-09-25 - Case Details
Additionally, “[i]n the cybersquatting context, ‘confusingly similar’ must simply mean that the mark and the domain name are so similar in sight, sound or meaning that they could be confused.” ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established that it has substantial rights in the LQ and LA QUINTA trademarks.
...
2010-11-05 - Case Details
In most of these cases, Panels have concluded that the domain names were confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. More particularly, see:
Societé Air France v. Virtual Dates, Inc., WIPO
Case No. ...However, that does not mean that the composite domain name can never be “confusingly similar” to the trademark at issue.
The Complainant has pointed out that not all users are familiar with English. ...
2007-05-16 - Case Details
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established that it has rights to the Trade Marks.
...Further, the Panel accepts that “NB Arizona” is the truncated version of the National Bank of Arizona and therefore confusingly similar to the Domain Name. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2017-02-24 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights in the DIRTYROULETTE trademark.
The trademark rights are established since 2016 through the Complainant’s trademark registration.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-12-09 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant pleads that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered trademarks JBS
and SEARA, since it fully incorporates Complainant’s referred trademarks.
...The Parties
A. Complainant
B. Respondent
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith...
2023-02-13 - Case Details
D2002-1115 (addition of generic words “healthcare” to form domain name deemed “confusingly similar to the BAYER trademark”); Aventis Pharma SA., Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH v. Jonathan Valicenti,
WIPO Case No. ...Therefore, this Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which Complainant has rights, in violation of the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2011-01-11 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant sets out that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the
trademarks INSPIRUS, in which the Complainant has rights and sets out details of its registered trademarks
for INSPIRUS.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established registered rights in its INSPIRUS trademark.
...
2023-09-13 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel determines that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. See, Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v. Above.com Domain Privacy / Transure Enterprise Ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0314 (finding to be confusingly similar to the IKEA mark); Mastercard International Incorporated v. Arena Offices,
WIPO Case No. ...
2018-05-17 - Case Details
The Panel finds therefore, that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar because it incorporates Complainant’s registered CLOROX Mark in its entirety and is recognizable within the disputed domain name.
...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. ...
2021-01-08 - Case Details
Prior UDRP panels have recognized that the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety may be sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered mark. AT&T Corp. v. William Gormally,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0758 (finding confusingly similar to ATT); Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. ...Jonathan Valicenti,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0037 (finding confusingly similar to LANTUS).
For the all of the foregoing reasons, this Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's ACCUTANE mark, in which the Complainant has established rights. ...
2010-04-08 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent contends that Complainant has not satisfied all three of the elements required under the Policy
for a transfer of the Domain Name.
(i) Identical or confusingly similar
Respondent states the Domain Name is not identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks held by
Complainant. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2025-10-23 - Case Details
However, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s default.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is required to establish the two following elements: (1) that it has trademark rights, and, if so, (2) that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark.
...Based on the foregoing findings, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MAGGIE SOTTERO trademarks, and paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is established.
...
2021-06-18 - Case Details
The addition of the generic dictionary words “watches store” to the BURBERRY word mark does not negate the confusingly similar aspects of Respondent’s Domain Name pursuant to Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
Moreover, the addition of a generic top-level domain such as “.com” is irrelevant when determining whether a dispute domain name is confusingly similar to a protected mark.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant presents evidence of multiple trademark registrations with the USPTO for its BURBERRY marks. ...
2011-04-07 - Case Details
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Respondent cannot (and does not) dispute that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s FRENCH OPEN trade mark registration for cosmetics.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights.
However, it is convenient here to explore also the Complainant’s allegation that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Community and United States Trade Mark registrations for ROLAND GARROS FRENCH OPEN. ...
2014-02-07 - Case Details
iii) That the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its mark for the following reasons;
a) The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the dominant portion of the Complainants mark BANK OF ALEXANDRIA.
...The Panel accepts the Complainant’s contentions. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. The Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
...
2013-05-02 - Case Details
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the VALERO mark because it fully incorporates the VALERO mark. Complainant maintains that the addition of the abbreviation “corp” (for “corporation”) and the geographic indicator “USA” do not distinguish the disputed domain name or impact on the confusingly similarity.
...In the instant proceeding, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s VALERO mark as it incorporates the VALERO mark in its entirety at the head of the disputed domain name. ...
2019-07-25 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant asserts registered rights in the EQUIFAX trademark. The Complainant submits that the
disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the EQUIFAX trademark.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under the first element, the Complainant must establish that the disputed domain name is identical with, or
confusingly similar to, the Complainant’s trademark rights.
...
2023-02-14 - Case Details