The Respondent possesses rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Not only is the disputed domain name not confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade marks, the Respondent has never resold the Complainant’s goods.
...Where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognisable in the disputed domain name, it will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing.
Section 1.9 of WIPO Overview 3.0 adds that a domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trade mark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element.
...
2021-09-03 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in The JASON HARTMAN trademark.
The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to this trademark. 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” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2018-10-03 - Case Details
In the instant case, there are various reasons for holding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
Firstly, the addition of a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) in the instant case is well recognized by WIPO UDRP decisions as being “completely without legal significance”, taken by itself, in demonstrating whether a disputed domain in confusingly similar to a Complainant’s Mark. ...D2000-1219, “points of similarity are weighed more heavily than points of difference” in determining whether a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark. (finding the domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s POKEMON trademark). ...
2018-07-18 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has submitted detailed evidence that it is the owner of the BMW trademark.
...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” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2017-03-30 - Case Details
Policy, paragraph 4(a).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Domain Names at issue are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...Finally, gTLDs and CCTLDS
shall be disregarded in the analysis as to whether a domain name and a trademark
are identical or confusingly similar. Thus the “.com” and the “.net”
in the Domain Names should be disregarded for this purpose. ...
2006-07-18 - Case Details
The omission of a letter has been found to be confusingly similar, as an example of typo-squatting, and is not sufficient to differentiate the domain name from the Complainant’s trademark. ...Applying this test to the domain name is not a “dictionary word”, or generic or descriptive. It is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s distinctive mark.
Respondent has made no good faith efforts to avoid registering and using a domain name identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. ...
2008-06-25 - Case Details
The Panel’s determination and assessment is based solely on the Policy.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainants claim to have common law or unregistered rights in WILLEM VEDOVI and VEDOVI.
...This is because these Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainants’ GALERIE VEDOVI mark and they do not include any additional word or term that may identify themselves as resolving to a criticism website. ...
2014-08-04 - Case Details
A complainant must prove each of these three elements to succeed.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant clearly has rights in the COSTCO (and other related) trademarks for the purposes of the Policy.
...The issue is whether the addition of the term “business” renders the Domain Name something other than confusingly similar to the Complainant’s COSTCO mark. COSTCO is the first and dominant element of the Domain Name. ...
2015-09-18 - Case Details
D2006-1475 (finding ,new-adobe.net> confusingly similar to complainant's ADOBE mark); see also LEGO Juris A/S v. Ranan Lachman,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0915 (finding confusingly similar to complainant's LEGO mark).
Lastly, it is well settled that the use of the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com" is not significant in determining whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. ...
2014-12-18 - Case Details
Further, the Complainant is confident that the PANERAI and LUMINOR Marks should be afforded the status of notorious marks and should therefore enjoy liberal protection under the Paris Convention.
Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the PANERAI and LUMINOR Marks because it fully incorporates those marks, merely adding a hyphen (and the generic Top-Level Domain ‘.com’).
...Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy and thus this element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been established.
...
2014-02-27 - Case Details
D2002-0439 (ordering transfer of and
because confusingly similar to ); Pfizer Inc. v. Phizer's
Antiques, Case No. D2002-0410 (ordering
transfer of because confusingly similar to Pfizer); OfficeMax,
Inc. v. ...D2002-0354
(ordering transfer of because confusingly similar to OFFICEMAX);
Time Warner Entertainment Co. v. Zuccarini, WIPO
Case No. D2001-0184 (ordering transfer of , ,
because confusingly similar to Harry Potter, Looney Tunes,
and Scooby-Doo).
...
2003-07-09 - Case Details
It is well-established
under the Policy that a domain name composed of a trademark coupled with a generic
term still is confusingly similar to the trademark (compare: NAF Case No. 141825
– ; WIPO Case No. D2002-0367
– )...There is a domain like
not owned by the Complainant and still operates.
REGARDING ‘Domain name is identical or confusingly similar to trademarks in
which Complainant has rights’
As mentioned above, T-Online tv is only trademarked in Germany. ...
2003-11-26 - Case Details
Namerental.com (D2001-0060) (Finding
that the domain name was confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
"GOOGLE" mark), see also American Airlines, Inc. v. Zuccarini
(FA0009000095695) (finding that the domain name
was confusingly similar to the Complainant’s "AMERICAN AIRLINES" mark).
As stated in a WIPO decision, "mere additions of minor misspellings to
a Complainant’s mark do not create a new or different mark with which a Respondent
has rights; it results in a domain name that is confusingly similar."
America Online Inc. v. Zuccarini (D2000-1495).
The Panel finds that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s
LIPITOR mark.
...
2003-04-29 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), the Complainant shall prove that the Disputed Domain Name is
identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark 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...
2023-08-10 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer
of the disputed domain name.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name and the ALSTOM trademark are confusingly
similar.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-02-20 - Case Details
i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the
Complainant has rights.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its
trademarks since it incorporates the BELFIUS mark in its entirety, differing only by the replacement of the “i”
by a “u”. ...The above three elements will each be discussed in further detail below.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is required to establish: (1) that it owns rights in a trademark or service mark, and, if so, (2)
that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademarks.
...
2023-02-23 - Case Details
The Panel may draw appropriate
inferences from the available evidence submitted by the Complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element, the Complainant must have relevant rights in a trademark and the disputed domain
name must be identical or confusingly similar to such trademark.
...The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to such mark. It argues that
the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the PRIDESTAFF trademark, as it incorporates the
trademark in its entirety.
...
2022-11-22 - Case Details
Taking the foregoing provisions into consideration the Panel finds as follows.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant must first establish rights in a trademark or
service mark and secondly establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its
trademark.
...Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
Rights or Legitimate Interests
B. Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. ...
2022-04-08 - Case Details
In conclusion, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which
Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...james wilkerson
Case No. D2022-3999
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith...
2023-01-12 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant contends to be the owner of the trademarks IQOS and HEETS in several jurisdictions, including but not limited to the United Arab Emirates to identify goods of international class 34.
...Hence, the inclusion of the “.net” gTLD, in the disputed domain name is not a factor in analyzing whether a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark in which Complainant asserts rights.
Furthermore, the Panel considers that the reproduction of the trademarks IQOS and HEETS, by the disputed domain name , respectively, is sufficient ground to establish that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks. ...
2020-08-05 - Case Details