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
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
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
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
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel must find that the Complainant has a trademark or service mark and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark or service mark for the Complainant to succeed.
...MasterCard Brasil,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1691, "mastercard-brasil.com" confusingly similar to MASTERCARD; Brunswick Family Boat Co. Inc. v. Andrea Chorbadjian,
WIPO Case No. D2013-1973, "baylinerbrasil.com" confusingly similar to BAYLINER.
...
2017-09-19 - Case Details
The Complainant’s Internet presence is extremely important to its business; by the end of fiscal year 2000, Internet sales to its customers reached nearly 50 percent of its revenue and averaged $40 million per day.
The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainant has rights. If a domain name incorporates a famous mark in its entirety, it is confusingly similar to that mark despite the addition of other words.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel has disregarded the top level domain ‘.com’ for the purposes of comparison of each of the disputed domain names with the marks of the Complainant on the basis that this is a wholly generic element of a domain name.
...
2004-11-24 - 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
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element requires the Panel to consider two issues: first, whether the Complainant has rights in a relevant mark; and, second, whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that mark. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant owns registrations for the ARCELORMITTAL mark. ...
2021-09-14 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant submits that it holds registered rights to the REPETTO trademarks as outlined above. The disputed domain name is alleged to be confusingly similar to these registered marks, as it incorporates the entire REPETTO mark along with merely descriptive elements.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that Complainant owns longstanding registered rights in its REPETTO trademarks. ...
2017-09-15 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends that is confusingly similar to Dell’s family of DELL marks and domain names, including DELL4ME and , asserting: “If a domain name incorporates a famous mark in its entirety, ‘it is confusingly similar to that mark despite the addition of other words.’” ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s DELL4ME and DELL marks. ...
2005-03-02 - 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 Panel is satisfied that the registrant of record for the Domain Name is Respondent and will therefore proceed to analyze whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied by Complainant in this proceeding.
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 is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
...Many UDRP decisions have found that a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark where the disputed domain name incorporates the complainant’s mark in its entirety. ...
2012-02-21 - Case Details
The Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name is subject to the control of the Respondent and will therefore proceed to analyze whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied in this proceeding.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant must establish rights in a trademark and secondly that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...Many UDRP panels have found that a domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark where the domain name incorporates the complainant’s mark in its entirety. ...
2012-02-16 - Case Details
The Panel is satisfied that the Domain Name is subject to the control of Respondent and will therefore proceed to analyze whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied by the Complainant in this proceeding.
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 is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
...Many UDRP decisions have found that a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark where the disputed domain name incorporates the complainant’s mark in its entirety. ...
2012-02-15 - Case Details
The Panel is satisfied that the Domain Name is subject to the control of Respondent and will therefore proceed to analyze whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied by Complainant in this proceeding.
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 is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
...Many UDRP decisions have found that a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark where the disputed domain name incorporates the complainant’s trademark in its entirety. ...
2012-02-23 - 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
- Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s famous registered YAHOO! service and trademarks.
- Respondent is not and has never been a licensee of Complainant. ...The Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks and service marks (See, e.g., Yahoo!Inc. & GeoCities v. DataArt Corp. et al., WIPO Case No. ...
2001-02-06 - Case Details
By
using the Complainant’s LHW trademarks and trademarks
identical or confusingly similar thereto the Respondent is attempting
to divert customers from the Complainant and profit therefrom.
...Confusing Similarity
The domain name is obviously confusingly
similar to the Complainant’s marks "The Leading Hotels of the World".
The domain name , although it does not specify
a global coverage, is also confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks.
...
2002-02-12 - Case Details