Complainant suggests that, in addition or in the alternative, the domain name is confusingly similar to the mark BMWFILMS.COM for which Complainant has common law rights by way of its use and advertising of its website "www.bmwfilms.com". ...In the following parts of this Decision, the Panel discusses each of those elements.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In this respect, Complainant has, according to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, to prove that the domain names at issue are identical with, or confusingly similar to, a trademark or a service mark in which Complainant has rights.
...
2003-07-04 - Case Details
The Panel will deal with each of these requirements in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complaint contends that the contentious domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks set out in detail above. Presumably this means that it is confusingly similar to all of them. The Complainant also contends that the domain name is identical to its trademarks ‘POST‘. ...
2006-03-16 - 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.
...To this end, prior UDRP panels have established that attracting Internet traffic by using a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark may be evidence of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP.
...
2015-04-22 - 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
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
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
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
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the burden of proving that all three elements are present lies with the Complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant states that disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark CALZEDONIA. ...The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark CALZEDONIA of the Complainant as it differs only by amending the “i” by an “n” in the trademark of the Complainant. ...
2012-06-19 - Case Details
i) Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant contends that the disputed domain names clearly use Complainant’s WING BOWL mark in its entirety. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
...
2012-11-23 - Case Details
AAIM,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0403.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainants must establish rights in a trademark and secondly that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which Complainants have rights.
...D2000-0429 finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark).
The Panel finds that Complainants have established rights in the trademarks NATIONAL GRID and NATIONALGRID and the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainants’ registered trademarks NATIONAL GRID and NATIONALGRID.
...
2013-07-31 - 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 a complainant’s registered mark. AT&T Corp. v. William Gormally,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0758 (finding confusingly similar to ATT); Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. ...D2011-1410 (finding that the addition of the prefix “93” in the domain name <93lego.com> failed to prevent the disputed domain name from being regarded as confusingly similar to the LEGO trademark).
For the foregoing reasons, this Panel unanimously finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ROLEX Mark, in which Complainant has established rights. ...
2014-05-26 - 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
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
Complainant further contends that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the WHATSAPP Mark pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the WHATSAPP Mark. ...It is generally accepted that the functional gTLD suffixes, such as “.org”, are irrelevant when assessing whether the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the WHATSAPP Mark.
Section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 says that the inclusion of the entire trademark in a domain name will render it confusingly similar to the Disputed Domain Names. ...
2019-07-10 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent contends that the domain name is not confusingly similar to Complainant’s
marks because there are over 13,700 active sites that begin with "att".
...Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances, any
one of which, if proved by the Respondent, would demonstrate the Respondent’s
rights or legitimate interests in the domain name for purposes of Paragraph
4(a)(ii).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Combining a generic word with a trademark to make a domain name may result
in a domain name that is confusingly similar to the trademark, in circumstances
where a distinctive trademark is still clearly recognizable as such in the combined
domain name. ...
2004-08-13 - Case Details
The Policy sets out four sets of circumstances that may evidence a Respondent’s bad faith registration and use under Paragraph 4(a)(iii), see Policy, paragraph 4(b), as well as examples of circumstances that may evidence a Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, see Policy, paragraph 4(c).
(1) Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant must establish that the disputed domain name is either identical or confusingly similar to its mark. ...FA0006000095042 (National Arbitration Forum, July 31, 2000), the panel stated that was confusingly similar to the FINANCIAL STRATEGIES FOR SUCCESSFUL RETIREMENT trademark, for which it was an acronym. ...
2005-05-24 - Case Details
The Panel therefore finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to trademarks in which Complainant has rights”).
Complainant further submits that the addition of a generic top level domain such as “.com” is irrelevant when determining whether a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a protected mark. ...AAIM,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0403.
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 in dispute is identical to or confusingly similar to the trademark in which Complainant has rights.
...
2008-08-14 - Case Details
D2001-0445 (May 31, 2001)(finding confusingly
similar to complainant's "ASU" mark); Ebay Inc. v. Ebay4sex.com, WIPO
Case no. D2000-1632 (January 18, 2001)( was confusingly
similar to complainant's "EBAY" mark); Caterpillar, Inc. v. ...The resolution of this dispute takes place in the context of a consideration of the requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is clear that the Complainant has rights to the words "grand bay".
It contends that the subject domain name is confusingly similar. ...
2001-10-01 - Case Details
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant has well-established rights in the world famous and highly distinctive COCA-COLA trademark. ...Based on this analysis, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s well-known COCA-COLA trademark.
Because the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the COCA-COLA trademark of Complainant, the Panel considers that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2012-08-31 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent makes the following contentions.
Identical or confusingly similar
The Disputed Domain Name is not identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. The Disputed Domain Name should not be divided into three parts to extract descriptive portions which support an argument of confusing similarity. ...The Panel accepts that the Respondent’s correct name is Önder Çelik.
6.2. Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.
...
2020-11-20 - Case Details