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
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
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
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 contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MONTBLANC mark, pointing out that the disputed domain name includes the generic and descriptive wording “stylos” and “pas cher” (meaning “pens” and “cheap” in French). ...The Panel agrees with the Complainant’s contentions and finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark MONTBLANC especially in that it incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety. ...
2013-11-21 - Case Details
Complainant claims that the disputed domain names and are confusingly similar to its trademarks CREDIT MUTUEL since they reproduce its “well-known” trademark in its entirety. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that disputed domain names and are confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark CREDIT MUTUEL in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2014-06-10 - 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
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. ...Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
B. Respondent
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-07-18 - 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
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
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
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
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
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
We must first determine whether the domain name at issue is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights. Respondent contends that because Respondent registered a domain name with the letter "e" preceding the SCHOLASTIC mark and added the plural forming "s" at the end, that Respondent's domain name is neither identical nor confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark.
...In each of the above cases the domain names were found confusingly similar to or identical to complainant's trademark which did not include the additional elements.
...
2001-03-23 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
Domain Name and Registered Trade Mark Confusingly Similar (paragraph
4(a)(i) of the Policy)
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is virtually identical or confusingly
similar to its Registered Mark. ...In relation to (c), the addition of a ".com" suffix has been
held in numerous panel decisions to be insubstantial and will not preclude
a finding that a domain name and a trademark are confusingly similar when
the remainder of the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to
the trademark.
...
2002-07-02 - Case Details