As such, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
Trademark, and accordingly, paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-04-05 - Case Details
Thus, although Respondent has failed to provide the Center with its response to the Complaint, the burden to
prove that the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are fulfilled by a preponderance of the
evidence, remains with the Complainant.
A. Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar
To prove this element the Complainant must have trade or service mark rights and the Domain Name must
be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade or service mark. ...Discussion and Findings
A. Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-03-23 - Case Details
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. ...It has also been established by prior UDRP panels that incorporating a trademark in its entirety into a domain name can be sufficient to establish that the domain name is confusingly similar to a registered trademark. Numerous UDRP panels have recognised that the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark. ...
2022-03-02 - Case Details
Considering these requirements, the Panel rules as follows:
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. ...It is also evidenced that the Respondent’s website offers services confusingly similar to those offered by the
Complainant and directly reproduces the Complainant’s CANVA trademark. ...
2022-04-22 - Case Details
In particular, the Complainant asserts that:
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
- The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered THERMOMIX trademark, in light of the fact that it wholly incorporates the Complainant’s mark with the addition of the letters “mj”.
...The Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the available evidence submitted by the Complainant.
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.
...
2021-12-16 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trade Marks. ...The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s primary domain name ; the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complaint’s career website ; the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s customer service subdomain .
...
2021-11-01 - Case Details
It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, where appropriate, will
decide consistent with the consensus views captured therein.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it should be established that the disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademarks and that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is met.
...
2023-01-20 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the HOLIDAY INN trademark and the HOLIDAY INN RESORTS trademark.
The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to each of these trademarks. Previous
UDRP panels have consistently held that domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark
for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar
approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2022-10-25 - Case Details
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 ARISTA 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...
2022-12-29 - Case Details
The Complainant must still prove each of the three elements required by Policy paragraph 4(a)”).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Ownership of a nationally or regionally registered trademark serves as prima facie evidence that Complainant has trademark rights for the purposes of standing to file this Complaint. ...The only remaining question under the first element of the Policy is whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s BOURSORAMA trademark. In this Complaint, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BOURSORAMA trademark because, disregarding the “.website” generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), the trademark is contained in its entirety within the disputed domain name. ...
2022-02-21 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfactorily proven that it has registered trademark rights for KIMLEY-HORN.
...D2001-0110, stating “The incorporation of a Complainant’s well-known trademark in the registered Domain Name is considered sufficient to find the Domain Name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.”
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first requirement that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark, under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2020-05-14 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the COLOPLAST trademark. The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to this trademark. Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2020-06-09 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to that of the H&M trademark. It is widely recognised, that the use of the ampersand “&” cannot be reflected in domain names. ...D2001-0110, stating “The incorporation of a Complainant’s well-known trademark in the registered Domain Name is considered sufficient to find the Domain Name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.”
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first requirement that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark, under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2020-06-03 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant says that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its CASINO DE MONACO trade mark. The mere addition of the number “24” to the word “monaco” does not prevent it from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark as this number simply indicates that Internet users can play on the Respondent’s gambling platform 24 hours a day. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided details of its CASINO DE MONACO trade mark registration, which establish its rights in this mark.
...
2020-12-10 - Case Details
Considering these requirements, the Panel rules as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. ...The Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark and the Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2021-03-24 - 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 to the Complainant’s registered Actavis trademarks, in light of the fact that it wholly incorporates the Complainant’s mark.
...The Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the available evidence submitted by the Complainant.
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.
...
2021-05-11 - Case Details
- The disputed domain name, , is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s E LECLERC mark, as the mark is wholly included within that domain name. ...The only difference between that domain name and the disputed domain name is the inclusion of a dash to substitute for a space between the two sections of the trademark, whereas the disputed domain name merely eliminates the space. Clearly, if the former domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's E LECLERC mark (which this Panel agrees it is), the disputed domain name in this proceeding also is confusingly similar to that mark. ...
2021-04-12 - Case Details
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s domain name and the Domain Name is likely to cause, and intended to cause, confusion among members of the public and others. ...The Panel will deal with each of the requirements in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the Domain Name is (i) identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, (ii) in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2021-04-06 - Case Details
Considering these requirements, the Panel finds as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel holds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. ...The Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark and the Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2021-03-30 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name”. ...Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondent is currently using the confusingly similar disputed domain name with the intention to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website.
...
2021-04-27 - Case Details