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
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
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
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
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
Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, there are two requirements which the Complainant must establish, first that it has rights in a trademark or service mark, and second that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s DPD trademark and that requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2021-02-19 - Case Details
It is furthermore well established that a domain name that wholly incorporates a trademark may be confusingly similar to that trademark for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of a descriptive word or suffix. ...Furthermore, Panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. ...
2021-01-04 - 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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, 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
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