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
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
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
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first requirement of paragraph 4 (a) of the Policy require the Complainants to establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which they have rights.
...It is the contention of the Complainants that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark despite addition of the term “spandan”. A domain name that entirely incorporates a mark along with another term is generally found to be confusingly similar to the well-known mark. ...
2013-08-16 - Case Details
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
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...
2022-04-04 - Case Details
Complainant
The Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the trademark.
The Respondent’s Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-05-16 - Case Details
page 4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has produced evidence of its registered trade and service marks for AMAZON, including
the mark full details of which have been set out above, which thereby establish its rights in this term. When
considering whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark
the country code Top-Level Domain “.ge” is disregarded as a technical requirement of registration. ...
2023-02-23 - Case Details
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the MOU marks because it contains the Complainant’s trademark MOU, as the distinctive and dominant element.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MOU trademark, in which the Complainant has established rights through registrations and extensive use all over the world.
...
2017-02-27 - Case Details
In particular, the Complainant asserts that:
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
- The disputed domain name is confusingly similar or identical to the Complainant's registered trademark, CIC, in light of the fact that it wholly incorporates the Complainant's mark.
...The Respondents have failed to file a response in this proceeding and is therefore in default and the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the available evidence submitted by the Complainant in accordance with the Rules, paragraph 14(b).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element, the Complainant must have trademark rights and the disputed domain name must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.
...
2018-04-06 - Case Details
The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its famous mark because it is phonetically identical and also a common misspelling of the HERTZ mark.
...But even if it were not, the Response was filed so shortly after the due date, that the Panel has admitted it to avoid any unfairness to the Respondent.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must demonstrate both that it ‘has rights’ in a mark, and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that mark.
...
2007-11-19 - 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
In the Complainants’ submission, is confusingly similar to all three LA PRESSE trademarks and is confusingly similar to both CYBERPRESSE trademarks. ...Given that in Québec the LA PRESSE mark is notoriously connected to media products and services, the result is, a disputed Domain Name that is confusingly similar to the LA PRESSE mark.
The disputed Domain Name is thus confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant LP has rights. ...
2008-06-13 - Case Details
A. The Domain Name is Confusingly Similar to the Complainant’s Mark
The Complainant has demonstrated its rights to the BYETTA trademark. ...CatalystMD, LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0647 (domain name confusingly similar to trademark despite addition of “sucks” to common law trademark); Pfizer Inc. v. Van Robichaux,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-05-10 - Case Details
D2002-0033 “The domain name is not only
confusingly similar to, but indeed practically identical with, the registered
trademark MASERATI, notwithstanding the added gTLD .org”.
...D2003-0841 where the “deletion of the letter ‘s’
in domain name confusingly similar to complainant’s
domain name” and in Pop Smear, Inc.
v. ...
2007-02-09 - 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
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
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
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