Policy, paragraph 4(a).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based upon the trademark registrations cited by Complainant it is apparent that Complainant has rights in and to the AAA Trademark. ...D2011-1017 (finding the domain name confusingly similar to the trademark GUCCI).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has proven the first element of the Policy.
...
2012-10-12 - Case Details
The disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
B. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
C. ...Nonetheless, the Complainant retains the burden of proving the three requisite elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
A. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i))
It is held that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark 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. ...
2012-07-12 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.3 The Complainant has produced sufficient evidence of ownership of trademark registrations namely, German, Community and International trademark registrations in the words JACK WOLFSKIN which was attached to the Complaint. ...Huang Yan Jin, supra cited by the Complainant where in similar circumstances the disputed domain name in that case was held to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark by reason of incorporating entirely the Complainant’s trademark JACK WOLFSKIN despite the additional letter “e” in the disputed domain name.
6.4 Accordingly, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established that the disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark in accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP Policy.
...
2012-08-31 - Case Details
Policy, paragraph 4(a).)
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Given Complainant’s trademark registrations and long use of the AAA trademarks in the United States and worldwide, the Panel finds that Complainant has trademark rights in the AAA mark.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. Accordingly, the Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
...
2013-01-08 - Case Details
Complainant
(1) The Disputed Domain Name Is Identical or Confusingly Similar to the Complainant’s Trademark
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark to which the Complainant has rights.
...The Panel holds that the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. ...
2011-01-25 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the NATIONAL trademark, owned by the Complainant, seeing that it incorporates the trademark as a whole.
...Respondent
The Respondent did not file a formal 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.
...
2010-06-02 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainants argue that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the RAPID SHARE trademark, owned by the Complainants, seeing that they incorporate the trademark as a whole.
...Further, the Respondent argued that the websites he operated under the disputed domain names were non-profit websites.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainants to show that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainants have rights.
...
2010-06-17 - Case Details
Furthermore, in making an enquiry as to whether a trade mark is identical or confusingly similar to a domain name, the domain extension, in this case “.com” should be disregarded (see Rohde & Schwarz GmbH & Co. ...There is no plausible explanation as to how the Respondent could have come up with the confusingly similar Disputed Domain Name but to suggest an association with the Complainant’s mark and business.
...
2013-07-03 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel has allowed the Complaint to proceed in the name of both Complainants.
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.
...The issue then is whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar. The Complainant says that the Respondent has, essentially, registered an amalgam of its marks.
...
2013-12-13 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel considers the disputed domain name clearly consists of a combination of the Complainants’ trademarks. ...The Respondent has chosen to use a disputed domain name confusingly similar to the Complainants’ marks in their entirety without authorization from the Complainants. ...
2014-01-28 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established that it is the owner of various registrations for the Trademark.
...The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.org” is a standard registration requirement and does not prevent
the Domain Name from being confusingly similar to the Trademark (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1).
The Panel therefore finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademark. ...
2023-11-24 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant argued the following:
I. Identical or Confusingly Similar
That the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SLACK trademark.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-11-30 - Case Details
It is well accepted by UDRP panels that a gTLD, such as “.com”, is typically ignored
when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. See section
1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. Therefore, the Panel is of the view that the disputed domain name is
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...
2023-10-23 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant clearly holds relevant ownership rights in the trademark ALSTOM, as demonstrated by the
registered trademarks enumerated in section 4. ...The Respondent clearly set out to target the Complainant, to deceive users into believing that its
confusingly similar disputed domain name was in fact associated with the Complainant, to thereby attract
Internet traffic for commercial gain.
...
2023-09-25 - Case Details
John Alli, WIPO Case No. D2004-0637, (finding
confusingly similar to the CREDIT SUISSE mark); and ZipRecruiter, Inc. v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o
Dynadot, WIPO Case No. ...Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
JACQUEMUS trademark.
The Panel finds that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is met.
...
2023-09-01 - Case Details
Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark
under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 4
B. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2023-09-26 - Case Details
Therefore, according to Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with Complainant’s
trademark MAD RUSH, fulf illing 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...
2024-04-25 - Case Details
The Panel considers that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to KPMG trademark.
Moreover, the Respondent registered and then used the disputed domain name to perpetrate an email scam
or phishing scheme.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-08-23 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP, the Complainant must demonstrate that the disputed domain
name is (i) identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, (ii) 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...
2023-06-23 - 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...
2024-01-09 - Case Details