Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. 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(s).
...Previous UDRP panels have established that a domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark when it incorporates a well known mark in its entirety. (America Online, Inc v. ...
2015-11-20 - Case Details
In this case, the differences are few
and the significance of each difference is essentially nil; in considering the
names as a whole, this Panelist finds that is confusingly
similar to Complainants’ 916 registration.
6.7 Turning now to the other disputed domain name ,
it incorporates a portion of Complainant’s trademark “CVS Today’s
Neighborhood Drugstore”. ...Therefore, this Panel finds that the domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
6.19 This Panel also notes that Respondent acted in a similar fashion in the
E. R. Squibb case, supra, in that Respondent registered a domain name
not identical to but confusingly similar to a registered mark of another. ...
2004-06-10 - Case Details
For the Complainant to succeed in this element, it must also show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel find that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to both the Complainant’s registered and common law trademarks. ...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks and accordingly, the first element has been satisfied.
...
2011-02-28 - Case Details
[A screen print of the home page of Respondent's web site as of October 19, 2009 was attached to the Complaint.]
The Domain Name is Confusingly Similar to Costco's Registered Trademarks
Respondent's Domain Name is confusingly similar to Costco's COSTCO trademarks. ...There is no doubt, in the Panel's, opinion that is confusingly similar to COSTCO in the present circumstances.
The Panel therefore finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to an earlier trademark in which the Complainants have rights, and the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are met.
...
2010-01-15 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant makes the following assertions.
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the
Complainant has rights.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks owned by the Complainant because it is
comprised of the Complainant’s VALERO mark in its entirety, plus the abbreviation “ng” for the geographical
region of Nigeria, along with the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), “.com”.
...In the present case, the Panel must decide whether the Complainant has introduced elements of proof, which
allow the Panel to conclude that its allegations are true.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well established in previous UDRP decisions that, where the disputed domain name incorporates a
complainant’s registered trademark, this may be sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name is identical
or confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2022-11-18 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainants’ SPIKEVAX Mark
in which Complainants possess valid trademark rights under the UDRP. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-11-14 - Case Details
A copy of the said decision has been attached as Annex 11 to the Complaint
The Complainant argues that disputed domain name is identical/confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark PAISABAZAAR, as it uses a virtually identical/deceptively similar term “Paisabazar”. ...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. ...
2020-09-28 - Case Details
Previous WIPO UDRP panels have consistently held that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trade mark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...In other words, Respondent has through the use of a confusingly similar domain name and webpage contents created a likelihood of confusion with the LESPORTSAC Mark. ...
2012-11-19 - 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
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
As the Respondent did not file a Response or otherwise reply to the Complainant's contentions, the Panel shall decide the Complaint on the basis of the Complainant's submissions and such inferences that can be reasonably drawn from the failure to submit a Response as the Panel considers applicable (Rules, paragraph 14(b)).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complaint submits that the disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the names and trademarks in which the Complainant has extensive rights. ...Whether a domain name which incorporates a complainant's trademark together with a prefix or suffix is confusingly similar to the trade mark has been considered in a great number of UDRP decisions. It has been held that a domain name consisting of the complainant's trademark and ending with the “.com” gTLD is confusingly similar to the complainant's trademark (see Sanofi-Aventis v. ...
2010-08-06 - Case Details
Complainant states that the relevant inquiry under Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) concerns whether the Domain
Name is confusingly similar to the OANDA mark. Complainant contends that incorporating a complainant's
registered trademark into a disputed domain name is sufficient without anything more to establish that the
domain name is confusingly similar to that 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...
2022-08-04 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant makes the following assertions:
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s VAN CLEEF & ARPELS marks, because it fully incorporates the VAN CLEEF & ARPELS marks, but contains a typographical error in “vanclef,” omits the non-essential element (the ampersand), and adds the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
...In the present case, the Panel must decide whether the Complainant has introduced elements of proof, which allow the Panel to conclude that its allegations are true.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well established in previous UDRP decisions that, where the domain name incorporates a complainant’s registered trademark, this may be sufficient to establish that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2014-01-17 - Case Details
This requirement asks whether the Respondents domain is identical or confusingly similar to the marks of the Complainant.
The Complainant makes no claim as to identity between the domain name and its marks, but rather asserts that the domain name in issue is confusingly similar to the DIGITAL CITY marks. ...The presence of other SLDs using the "digitalcity" expression does not, as an empirical matter, say much about whether "digitalcitymap.com" is confusingly similar. All of the other SLDs might be confusingly similar also – though of course I am making no conclusions about these marks, since they are not in issue in this matter. ...
2000-11-14 - Case Details
Complainant further contends that the Domain Names are identical with and confusingly similar to the trademark pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
Respondents have not contested the assertions by Complaint that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Trademarks.
...Accordingly, the Sole Panelist finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant's Trademarks.
Respondents’ Domain Names "nfospace.com", "infoospace.com", "infospacer.com" and "infospacers.com" are also confusingly similar to Complainant's INFOSPACE mark are clearly misleading. ...
2001-04-06 - Case Details
For the foregoing reasons, the Panel considers that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered trademark property of the Complainant, being both the Complainant's mark and the registered domain name by the Respondent, phonetically and visually confusingly similar, once the specific top level is taken away. ...Nor it entitles the Respondent to be vested with any rights to register a confusingly similar expression of the Complainant's mark as a domain name.
This issue has been addressed by other Administrative Panels, where the fact of a party having various domain names bearing a trademark are not sufficient reason for preventing it from being able to register a confusingly similar variation of the mark. ...
2004-05-13 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain is confusingly similar to the Mark because the disputed domain name is composed of the Complainant’s exact Mark the letter “g” is changed to the visually similar letter “q”.
...The Center did receive emails from a person identifying herself as [Name Redacted] who denied registering the disputed domain name and stated that her name was fraudulently used to register the disputed domain name.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark.
...
2019-11-13 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
The Domain Name is Confusingly Similar to Complainant's Mark
With respect to this issue, the Complainant asserts that the contested domain name is confusingly similar to its mark since it combines the UPMC trademark with the generic term “nursing,” which is closely associated with the Complainant and the services it provides.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name is virtually identical to the Complainant's UPMC mark. ...
2008-08-29 - Case Details
The addition of the dictionary words “global” and “service” and the gTLD “.com” which is a necessary
functional part of a domain name does not prevent the Domain Name from being confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s UMICORE mark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant
has rights for the purpose of the Policy.
...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...
2022-04-22 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's Mark notwithstanding Respondent's appending the letters "lfe" and "lif", respectively, as suffixes to the Complainant's Mark to form the disputed domain names. ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's Mark and that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met.
...
2016-08-18 - Case Details