case=D2014-1471
page 4
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided clear evidence that it has rights in the trademark BNP PARIBAS and that the
trademark is well known.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-11-17 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has proved to have rights in the trademark PURDEY.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark PURDEY in which the Complainant has rights and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are fulfilled.
...
2022-10-03 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant holds numerous trademarks for EQUIFAX. These trademarks are registered for various
services, in more than 50 jurisdictions around the world. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-05-10 - Case Details
Complainant contends the use of the descriptive term “lawyers” after his name in the Domain Name renders
the Domain Name confusingly similar. Complainant argues that where a mark is the distinctive part of a
domain name, that domain name is considered to be confusingly similar to the 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...
2022-07-27 - Case Details
This means that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark and
hence the first element of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-07-21 - Case Details
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel must first determine whether the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a
trademark or service mark in which Complainants have rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the
Policy. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel must first determine whether the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainants have rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...
2022-06-29 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant must establish that it 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.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-06-27 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has submitted to the Panel evidence of registrations for its XHAMSTER service mark with the BOIP, ABIPCO and EUIPO. ...D2017-0408 (finding to be confusingly similar to the CHATROULETTE mark).
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2021-01-26 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold inquiry: a threshold investigation into whether a
complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the domain name is identical
or confusingly similar to that trademark. ...Thus, the Panel concludes
that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s EQUINOR Mark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the
Complainant.
...
2022-12-08 - Case Details
The
display of pay-per-click advertising in association with a domain name that is confusingly similar to a
complainants’ trademark is sufficient on its own for a finding of registration and use in bad faith. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The First Complainant has established rights in the CHEVRON trademark because it has become a
distinctive identifier which consumers associate with the CHEVRON group of companies. ...
2022-12-23 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in the INTERSPORT trade mark, based on its various trade mark registrations.
...As such, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s INTERSPORT trade mark, and accordingly, paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2021-06-09 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
As set forth in section 1.7 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) the standing test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the trademark and the disputed domain name to determine whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the trademark. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the MICHELIN trademark in which the Complainant has rights and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are fulfilled.
...
2021-09-02 - Case Details
The Panel will further analyze the potential concurrence of the above circumstances.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s trademarks CREDIT MUTUEL, which, as long established by previous UDRP panels, may be sufficient to determine that a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
...Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
The Panel finds that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is met.
...
2021-11-22 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold inquiry: a threshold investigation into whether a
complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the domain name is identical
or confusingly similar to that trademark. ...Thus, it is well
established that, as here, such element may typically be disregarded when assessing whether a domain
name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. See Proactiva Medio Ambiente, S.A. v. Proactiva,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0182 and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.
...
2023-02-13 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant owns the trademark PATIENT FIRST, registered in the United States of America under Registration No. 1460408, and registered on October 6, 1987. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant does have trademark rights in the mark PATIENT FIRST by virtue of United States of America Trademark Registration No. 1460408 registered on October 6, 1987.
...
2011-07-08 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is identical with and confusingly similar to the MicroApp Marks because it incorporates the whole of the phrases “microapp.com” and “microapp.” ...Complainant further contends that the Disputed Domain Name is identical with and confusingly similar to the trademark pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is identical with and confusingly similar to the MicroApp Marks because it incorporates the whole of the phrases “microapp.com” and “microapp” with only the non-distinctive additional phrase “www.”
...
2011-07-05 - Case Details
The Panel has no hesitation in finding that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights”).
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ARMANI trademark in which Complainant has rights. ...The addition of the terms “black” and “label” do not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the ARMANI trademark to avoid a finding of confusing similarity. The combination of similar terms and a trademark to form a domain name was held to be confusingly similar to the trademark at issue. ...
2011-07-01 - Case Details
UDRP panels have consistently held that domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark 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. ...The Panel further concludes that the disputed domain name , being a direct phonetic transliteration into pinyin of the雅漾trade mark, is confusingly similar to the雅漾trade mark.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Trade Marks.
...
2011-07-28 - Case Details
As the Respondent has failed to submit a response to the Complainant’s contentions, the Panel may choose to accept as true all of the reasonable allegations of the Complaint, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. null John Zuccarini, Country Walk,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0487.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark LOVABLE.
...Considering that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark LOVABLE, the first requirement of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...
2011-08-30 - Case Details
The Domain Names in dispute are each confusingly similar to the Marks as the Domain Names consist only of the Marks and the generic word “recipes.” ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant registered the Marks in various jurisdictions around the world. The Domain Names incorporate the Marks and in the Panel’s view create sufficient similarity to be confusingly similar to the Marks. ...
2012-02-21 - Case Details