A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The Panel also finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MILLIMAN
mark. Where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, the domain name will normally be
considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing. ...
2024-10-11 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...In such circumstances, it
may be said that the respondent himself evidently believed the domain name to be confusingly similar to the
complainant’s mark, else he would not have registered that domain name. Put another way, in such
circumstances the respondent has conceded that the domain name is confusingly similar to the subject
trademark.
...
2024-07-05 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Furthermore, the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is viewed as a standard
registration requirement and as such is disregarded for the purpose of determining whether a domain name
is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark.
An earlier UDRP decision has acknowledged that a similar disputed domain name was confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark (WIPO Case No. ...
2024-12-26 - 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
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established that it has rights to the distinctive Trade Mark. ...In this case the Domain Name comprises a misspelling of the Trade Mark USIBOR by replacing the letter “s” with the letter “z”. Both letters are phonetically similar and as such aurally and phonetically the Second Level Domain Name is almost identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. ...
2019-05-13 - Case Details
Therefore, the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfactorily proven that it has registered trademark rights for TRIVAGO.
...
2020-03-19 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, and the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
...The Panel finds that all the circumstances of the present proceeding support the conclusion that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names precisely because he believed that the disputed domain names were confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trade Mark.
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.
...
2020-03-16 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfactorily proven that it has registered trademark rights for WHATSAPP and the green phone logo.
...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.
B. ...
2019-07-25 - Case Details
The Complainant claims that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its CIC and CIC BANQUES trademarks.
The Complainant claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under the first UDRP element, the Complainant must prove that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2019-09-03 - 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
The issue which the Panel has to decide in respect of each domain name in dispute is whether it is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark “KAZAA”.
The Complainant contends:
1. All the domain names are “confusingly similar” to the mark KAZAA in that each represents a “slight variation” of the word “Kazaa”. ...The Panel considers that it should approach each of the domain names and consider whether each is confusingly similar on their face. Whether or not, letters differ between the mark KAZAA and the domain name complained upon is merely part of the test which the Panel has to decide i.e. is the domain name confusingly similar? ...
2005-01-12 - Case Details
Policy, paragraph 4(a)
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has provided evidence of its prior rights to the TIFFANY Mark, used by Complainant and its licensees for retail sale of jewelry and other goods. ...Complainant's well-known TIFFANY Mark is the dominant portion of the Domain Name, which is therefore likely to be confusingly similar to the mark. Tiffany (NJ) LLC and Tiffany and Company v. Jack Gogle. Neither the inclusion of the descriptive word “store” nor the addition of the suffix “.net” to the Complainant's mark precludes a finding that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the TIFFANY Mark. ...
2009-06-23 - Case Details
Policy, paragraph 4(a).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has provided evidence of its prior rights to the TIFFANY Mark, used by Complainant and its licensees for retail sale of jewelry and other goods. ...Complainant's TIFFANY Mark is the dominant portion of the Domain Name, which is therefore likely to be confusingly similar to the mark. See Tiffany (NJ) LLC and Tiffany and Company v. Jack Gogle,
WIPO Case No. ...
2009-06-19 - Case Details
Complainant contends that Respondent has sought to profit by using the Domain Name that is confusingly similar to Complainant's registered mark in order to profit from the goodwill associated with the registered mark.
...The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's BGC trademark. Respondent merely added the word “securities” to the end of the mark. ...
2009-09-02 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant contends that each of the eight Disputed Domain Names is confusingly similar to the Playboy Marks. ...Asia Sun, supra (finding playboymobile.com to be confusingly similar); Playboy Enters. Inter’l, Inc. v. Concas, supra ; Playboy Enters. ...
2007-03-15 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The present dispute pertains to the domain name .
The Complainant is the registered owner of the trademark SALTON in the United
Kingdom. ...D2000-0869, the panel compared the respondent’s domain name
with the complainant’s trademark ESTEE LAUDER and came to the conclusion
that the absence of one “e” was the only difference and concluded
that the respondent’s domain name is “confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s mark”. Similar conclusions have been arrived at by
the panels in the cases of Pharmacia & Upjohn AB v. ...
2005-11-04 - Case Details
On the central points in issue, the Complainant contends the following:
(a) Identical or Confusingly Similar – The domain name is virtually identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CURASCRIPT mark. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There are two elements that must be proven in order for the Complainant to succeed on this threshold issue: a) the Complainant has rights in the particular mark or marks; and b) the domain name in question is identical or confusingly similar to that mark.
...
2006-05-29 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There are two elements that must be satisfied to establish paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy: the Complainant must have rights in the particular mark or marks, and the Domain Name must be identical or confusingly similar to the respective mark(s).
...The fact of confusing, attracting and forwarding customers to competing websites by using a confusingly similar domain name is not considered by this Panel as a bona fide offering of services or goods.
...
2006-04-06 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first issue in this matter is whether the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. ...This conduct is commonly referred to as “typosquatting”
and creates a virtually identical and/or confusingly similar mark to the Complainant’s
trademark (Wachovia Corporation v. Peter Carrington, WIPO
Case No. ...
2006-03-21 - Case Details
D2000-0651 (September 12, 2000) (“credit” added to
the mark HANG SENG in did not distinguish that domain
name from being confusingly similar to the HANG SENG mark); Oki Data Americas,
Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903
(November 6, 2001) (“parts” added to the mark OKIDATA in
did not distinguish that domain name from being confusingly similar to the OKIDATA
mark).
Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SHAREBUILDER trademark, a federally-registered trademark in which Complainant has rights.
...
2006-03-16 - Case Details