The fame of the Complainant's mark has been enhanced greatly by the amount of online investment committed to it by the Complainant, and is attested to by the many prior cybersquatters that have attempted to infringe upon it through the registration of confusingly similar domain names.
The disputed domain name, , is confusingly similar to the EBAY mark. ...A consensus of prior UDRP decisions has found that such minor distinctions do not prevent a disputed domain name from being, if not identical, at least confusingly similar to an established mark. Therefore, the Panel determines that the disputed domain name, , is confusingly similar to the Complainant's EBAY service mark. ...
2015-06-01 - Case Details
D2005-0728 ("Domain names which differ from a trademark by only minor variations have a greater tendency to be confusingly similar to the trademark where the trademark is highly distinctive"); and Reuters Limited v. Global Net 2000, Inc,
WIPO Case No. ...Therefore, the Panel concludes that is also confusingly similar to both the LATEROOMS and LATEROOMS.COM marks.
As a result, the Panel finds that the Complainant has shown that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2016-07-11 - 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. ...UDRP panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith registration. ...
2021-05-03 - Case Details
The
Complainant must still prove each of the three elements required by Policy paragraph 4(a)”).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Ownership of a nationally or regionally registered trademark serves as prima facie evidence that
Complainant has trademark rights for the purposes of standing to file this Complaint. ...The only remaining question under the first element of the Policy is whether the disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s FENWICK trademark. In this Complaint, the disputed
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s FENWICK trademark because, disregarding the “.com”
generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), the trademark is contained in its entirety within the disputed domain
name. ...
2022-05-03 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant holds valid trademark rights for the MAGNA trademarks.
Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its MAGNA trademark, that is reproduced identically, with the mere addition of the terms “canada” and “inc”.
...It is standard practice to disregard the generic Top-Level Domain (‘gTLD’) under the confusingly similar test. Having the above in mind, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark ACCENTURE and that the Complainant has proven the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy”. ...
2021-06-28 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its BKS and BKS BANK Marks. The disputed domain name further consists of the descriptive elements “online” and “bank”. ...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. ...
2021-06-24 - Case Details
Accordingly, the WIPO Overview 3.0 at 1.9 states that: “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.” The disputed domain name must be considered confusingly
similar to the Trademark in that it is similar to such trademark in both sight and sound. ...It is well established that seeking to profit from
the sale of a confusingly similar domain name that incorporates a third party’s trademark demonstrates bad
faith. The panel in Groupe Auchan v. ...
2022-04-12 - Case Details
Notably, Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered
trademark ARVATO, since it fully incorporates Complainant’s trademark ARVATO.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-02-08 - Case Details
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 trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. The Panel concludes that in the present case, the Disputed
Domain Name is confusingly similar to the LEAGUE OF LEGENDS Mark.
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-02-19 - Case Details
Respondent registered the confusingly similar Domain Name that includes the ZIONS Mark and ZIONS DIRECT Mark. ...The Domain Name , wholly incorporates the ZIONS BANK Mark thus, it is confusingly similar to that Mark. Adding the elements “email-” and “pf” to the ZIONS BANK Mark do not diminish the confusing similarity with the Domain Name. ...
2017-07-03 - Case Details
The addition of the prefix ‘in-’ does not prevent the Domain Name from being confusingly similar to the ACCENTURE Mark.”). The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the ACCENTURE Marks, as well as the domain name , and is likely to mislead, deceive and cause mistake as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Domain Name.
...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel considers that all the information provided by the Complainant attests that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the ACCENTURE Marks. ...
2019-11-11 - Case Details
As a result, the Panel determines that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. See Aventis, Aventis Pharma SA. v. John Smith,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0624 (where the panel found the disputed domain name, , to be confusingly similar to the trademark, AVENTIS); and Novell, Inc. v. Taeho Kim, NAF Case No. FA167964 (where the panel determined that was confusingly similar to the NOVELL mark).
...
2008-04-09 - Case Details
They will be examined in turn below.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, does Complainant have rights in a relevant mark and, second, is the Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to that mark.
...Using a domain name that is confusingly similar to another's trademark to offer sponsored links to third parties has been regarded by other panels as registration and use in bad faith. ...
2009-03-10 - Case Details
The Panel, therefore, finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark and that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...It is generally regarded as prima facie evidence if: (a) a complainant shows that a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant's trade mark; (b) that the respondent is not commonly known by such disputed domain name; and (c) that the complainant has not authorized the respondent to use his mark (or an expression which is confusingly similar to its mark). ...
2009-08-25 - Case Details
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 names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...The result is that the Complainant has shown that the above disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant has shown that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2009-12-08 - Case Details
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.
...The result is that the Complainant has shown that the above disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant had shown that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2010-04-30 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that:
(1) The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's Trade Mark for the following reasons:
a. The Complainant's Trade Mark AIR FRANCE KLM is entirely reproduced in the Disputed Domain Name;
b. ...The addition of a gTLD suffix (“.com”) to a domain name does not change the fact that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's Trade Mark.
(2) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name for the following reasons:
a. ...
2010-07-21 - Case Details
Complainant further contends that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the trademark pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
Respondent has not contested the assertions by Complainant that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the trademark.
As numerous prior UDRP panels have recognized, the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered mark. See Paccar Inc. v. Telescan Technologies, L.L.C., 115 F. ...
2012-06-29 - Case Details
Complainant also points to a past pattern of Respondent registering domain names that are confusingly similar to other parties’ marks.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. ...D2001-1240 (April 26, 2002). In another case with similar facts,
the Panel concluded that is “confusingly similar
and identical to the Complainant’s trademark HALCYON YARN and the
domain name. ...
2006-12-22 - Case Details
Complainant further contends that the Domain Name is effectively identical to, and confusingly similar to, Complainant’s trademarks CABLEVISION, CABLEVISION LIGHTPATH and LIGHTPATH and that it is an accepted tenet of UDRP practice that a domain name that wholly incorporates a registered trademark in its entirety and without alteration is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark and satisfies the requirements of Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...Therefore, Complainant has proven that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CABLEVISION LIGHTPATH mark, the first of the three elements required by the Policy.
...
2005-03-22 - Case Details