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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
The Complainants claim that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the registered and unregistered M88 and M88.COM trademarks in which the Complainants have rights. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To satisfy the first UDRP element, a domain name must be “identical or confusingly similar” to a trademark, in which a complainant has rights. ...
2015-02-27 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark and, second, is the Disputed Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
...Moreover, the registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a well-known registered trademark by an entity that has no relationship to that mark may be sufficient evidence of bad faith registration and use. ...
2016-10-28 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Further, the gTLD “.xyz” is a standard registration requirement and does not prevent the disputed domain
name from being confusingly similar to the SYNGENTA Trademark.
Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trademark for the purposes of the
Policy.
...
2025-06-18 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant submitted evidence, which incontestably and conclusively establishes rights in the
trademark WHATSAPP.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-11-24 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to its WIKIPEDIA mark and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names.
...What is clear, however, is that the Domain Names themselves are confusingly similar to the widely known WIKIPEDIA mark, and that the Respondent used the Domain Names to bring visitors to his own website, which was designed with a remarkably similar “look and feel” to the Complainant's websites, including copied logos and typefaces. ...
2010-04-27 - Case Details
In the text, the Complainant asserts that the domain name at issue is “very similar” and “confusingly similar” to the Complainant's trademarks in the light of the fact that it incorporates its trademark in its entirety.
...The Respondent, having failed to respond in these proceedings, is in default and the Panel shall draw such appropriate inferences therefrom.
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.
...
2010-07-01 - Case Details
To satisfy the test, the trademark to which the domain name is said to be identical or confusingly similar would generally need to be recognisable as such within the domain name. The addition of common, dictionary, descriptive, or negative terms are usually regarded as insufficient to prevent Internet user confusion. ...As numerous prior UDRP panels have recognized, the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety in a domain name may be sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered mark. The addition of other generic terms in the domain name does not affect a finding that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered trademark (Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. ...
2014-01-09 - Case Details
Michael Robertson, WIPO Case No. D2000-0009).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel agrees with Complainant’s allegations that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to
Complainant’s IBM marks.
...This renders beyond dispute that Respondent sought to exploit Complainant’s
trademark through registration of the confusingly similar disputed domain names, and the Panel so finds.
The Panel holds therefore that Respondent registered the disputed domain names in bad faith. ...
2023-09-20 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant, under the first requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, needs to establish that the
disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark in which it 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...
2023-06-27 - Case Details
Therefore, according to Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with Complainant’s
trademarks CLIPS4SALE.COM and CLIPS4SALE, fulfilling paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-03-18 - Case Details