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.
...The result is that the Complainant has shown that the above disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant had shown that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2010-03-17 - Case Details
Robertson,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0009.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has submitted copies of its trademark registration for MYHOSTING in Canada and the EU. ...Thus, as the domain name incorporates the entirety of Complainant’s mark, it is sufficiently similar to be confusingly similar to that mark.
The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has satisfied the first prong of the test.
...
2008-07-29 - Case Details
See Paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant must establish that the disputed domain name is either identical or confusingly similar to its mark.
...See Paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. As noted above, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. Visitors to the site were presented with what appear to be links related to the same or similar services. ...
2006-12-01 - Case Details
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark, arguing that name incorporates in full the mark along with the descriptive term “maps”. ...Ang Wa Assoc.,
WIPO Case No. 2004-0535 (September 29, 2004) (finding the domain name to be confusingly similar to the trademark, USAA).
For the reasons stated above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proved that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2007-08-28 - Case Details
The Policy sets out examples of circumstances that may evidence a Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, see, Policy, Paragraph 4(c), as well as circumstances that may evidence a Respondent’s bad faith registration and use, see Policy, Paragraph 4(b).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant must establish that the disputed domain name is either identical or confusingly similar to its mark.
...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
As noted above, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ALLIANT CREDIT UNION mark. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that Respondent’s site would attract visitors who are actually seeking Complainant.
...
2007-10-03 - Case Details
The Panel will not, therefore, consider the .mobi tld when assessing whether is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark for “PLAYBOY”, “PLAYBOY MOBILE” and “PLAYBOY MOBILE TV”.
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark and that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
...
2007-09-26 - Case Details
The Panel finds that this Domain Name is confusingly similar to trade marks and service marks in which the Complainant has rights.
The Second Domain Name . ...This Domain Name is not identical to the Complainant’s trade mark, but is it confusingly similar to it?
In the trade mark context the term "confusingly similar" refers to confusion as to trade origin. ...
2001-09-24 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the Domain Name is identical of confusingly similar to its DANONE trademark. The Complainant claims it owns numerous trademark registrations in the DANONE trademark across the world. ...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
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain names are all confusingly similar to at least one of the Complainant’s trade marks (as listed in Factual Background above). ...However, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondents' default.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade marks.
...
2015-02-02 - Case Details
Complainant contends the Disputed Domain Name is similar in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression to its Mark, and thus is confusingly similar to Complainant's PLAYBOY Mark. ...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, Case No. D2005-0758 (finding confusingly similar to ATT); Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. ...
2014-06-23 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark or trademarks and, second, is the Disputed Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to those trademarks.
...Second, the registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a trademark by an entity that has no relationship to that mark may be sufficient evidence of opportunistic bad faith. ...
2016-12-09 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Respondent concedes that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.
...The onus of proving these elements is on the Complainant.
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.
...
2016-10-10 - Case Details
The Complainant states the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its mark, except that the letter "g" in its mark has been changed to "q" in the disputed domain name, however, it looks almost identical and is confusingly similar to its mark.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which it has rights.
...
2015-11-09 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trademark ACCUTANE and to its registered trademarks ROACCUTAN and ROACCUTANE.
...Other UDRP panels have also found that the use of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant's trademark in order to offer competitors' products for sale is not a bona fide offering of goods (see, e.g., F. ...
2016-01-19 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant makes the following contentions.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark, as it incorporates almost the entirety of the Trade Mark, replacing the letter “o” with the letter “i”. ...However, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s default.
B. 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.
...
2015-12-28 - Case Details
D2015-0997 (finding to be confusingly similar to the ACCUTANE mark, saying “[t]he expression “ok” and the “hyphen” are not enough to avoid confusion by Internet users.”); and DHL Operations B.V. v. ZLEX,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1612 (finding to be confusingly similar to the DHL mark, opining “[t]he addition of 'dg-' leaves the domain name in issue still looking confusingly like the Complainant’s mark.”).
...
2017-01-26 - Case Details
The Complainant submits the grounds for these proceedings listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its VOITH trademarks. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Policy simply requires the Complainant to demonstrate that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. ...
2016-02-16 - 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, are the Disputed Domain Names identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
...First, the registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a registered trademark by an entity that has no relationship to that mark may be sufficient evidence of opportunistic bad faith. ...
2016-04-27 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-05-26 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that;
a) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the
Complainant has rights.
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name creates a likelihood of
confusion as it is aurally to the Complainant’s highly similar registered SKYSCANNER trademarks. ...Moreover, addition of term “shop” is not sufficient to eliminate the similarity since
it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”). Considering the confusingly similar
trademarks and identity of the Complainant’s business, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar.
...
2025-03-11 - Case Details