Complainants contend the omission of the letter “u” from the Domain
Name is an intentional misspelling of the THE WORK NUMBER mark and, therefore, the Domain Name is
confusingly similar to the mark.
Accordingly, Complainants conclude the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the THE WORK
NUMBER mark.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2026-04-02 - Case Details
These elements are discussed below.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Where a Complainant has established statutory and/or common law rights to a
particular trademark through continuous and exclusive use of the mark, the subsequent
apposite inquiry is whether the domain name is identical or confusingly similar
to that trademark.
...As the Complainant has established rights in the DOGGON’ WHEELS mark, the question
for the Panel is whether the domain name is identical
or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The two are not identical,
as the Complainant asserts, but rather are very similar. ...
2003-05-22 - Case Details
A. The Domain Name is Confusingly Similar to the Complainant’s Mark
The Complainant has demonstrated its rights to the BYETTA trademark. ...CatalystMD, LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0647 (domain name confusingly similar to trademark despite addition of “sucks” to common law trademark); Pfizer Inc. v. Van Robichaux,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-05-10 - Case Details
D2002-0033 “The domain name is not only
confusingly similar to, but indeed practically identical with, the registered
trademark MASERATI, notwithstanding the added gTLD .org”.
...D2003-0841 where the “deletion of the letter ‘s’
in domain name confusingly similar to complainant’s
domain name” and in Pop Smear, Inc.
v. ...
2007-02-09 - Case Details
Complainant further contends that the Disputed Domain Name is identical with or confusingly similar to the CROCS Mark pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
As numerous courts and prior UDRP panels have recognized, 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. ...Respondent has not contested the assertions by Complainant that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the CROCS Mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the CROCS Mark pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2015-01-05 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not 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.
...Consequently, this panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s OSRAM trademark.
Previous UDRP panels have ruled that the mere addition of a non-significant element does not sufficiently differentiate the disputed domain name from the registered trademark: “[t]he 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” (Britannia Building Society v. ...
2015-02-24 - Case Details
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.
...It is well established that a domain name is confusingly similar to a mark “when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation.” ...
2015-03-20 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(1) Identical or confusingly similar: Complainant contends the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its IBM trademark. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel must first determine whether the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. ...
2014-07-04 - Case Details
Translation of the Complaint and other materials would cause unnecessary cost and delay.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element, Complainant must have trademark rights and the Disputed Domain Names must be identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.
...It is well established that a domain name is confusingly similar to a mark “when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation.” ...
2014-08-08 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has submitted detailed evidence that it is the owner of registered trademarks in respect of the word "goodwill".
...Previous 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 trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name" (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2015-06-29 - Case Details
Having considered the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules, the Supplemental Rules and applicable principles of law, the Panel's findings on each of the above cited elements are as follows.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires Complainant to show that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights. ...Here, the addition of the letter "s" in "Asventis" is almost imperceptible and the Domain Name is unquestionably confusingly similar to the SANOFI AVENTIS mark. See Dow Jones & Company, Inc. and Dow Jones LP v. John Zuccarini,
WIPO Case No. ...
2016-08-18 - Case Details
D2016-0672 (where the panel found to be confusingly similar to the ACCUTANE Mark) and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Marina Kovtun,
WIPO Case No. D2016-0852 ( found to be confusingly similar to the ACCUTANE Mark).
In this Panel's view, the test of confusingly similarity is clearly satisfied. This Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to marks in which Complainant has rights, for the purpose of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2016-10-11 - Case Details
The Complainant adds that in numerous cases UDRP panelists have found domain names to be confusingly similar to a trademark where the complained-of domain name is composed of the letters “www” preceding the complainant’s trademark. ...Lisa Katz, Domain Protection LLC / Domain Hostmaster, Customer ID: 64382986619850 Whois Privacy Services Pty,
WIPO Case No. D2015-1601 ( confusingly similar to BJ’s Wholesale Club); CSC Holdings, Inc. v. Elbridge Gagne, Balboa,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0273 ( confusingly similar to AMCTV); and CITGO Petroleum Corporation v. ...
2016-01-22 - Case Details
The Complainant states the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark as it contains the entire mark. The Complainant argues that the generic word "resorts" used by the Respondent does not interfere with the finding of confusing similarity.
...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.
...
2015-10-16 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant contends that it has numerous registrations of the HALLIBURTON mark and that its trademark registrations are valid and subsisting. ...Respondent has not contested the assertions by Complainant that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the HALLIBURTON mark. The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the HALLIBURTON mark, pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2016-05-13 - Case Details
Clearly, the Panel must conclude that the disputed domain name, , is at least confusingly similar to the MARKMONITOR mark. See, Lotus Group Limited v. Dial A Flights,
WIPO Case No. D2016-0080 (finding to be confusingly similar to the DIAL-A-FLIGHT mark); and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Paulo Kann,
WIPO Case No. D2010-2093 (finding to be confusingly similar to the MERCK mark).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainants have succeeded in proving that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a service mark in which the Complainants have rights.
...
2016-06-03 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first requirement under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy stipulates the Complainant needs to establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark in which it has rights.
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant has successfully established the first requirement under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark in which it has rights.
...
2016-11-23 - Case Details
It is viewed as a standard registration requirement.
The Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy therefore are fulfilled.
...In addition, this is also a case where the Respondent has a pattern of registering domain names that are confusingly similar to trade marks or well-known and famous trade marks in violation of paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy. ...
2018-03-23 - Case Details
Thus, the Panel does find to be confusingly similar to the KULULA trademark. See, Learning Tree International, Inc. v. hghghjjk jghjjklk,
WIPO Case No. D2015-1243 (finding to be confusingly similar to the LEARNING TREE mark); Lilly ICOS LLC v. Jason Kleiner,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0563 (finding to be confusingly similar to the CIALIS mark); and Expedia, Inc. v. ...
2017-04-10 - Case Details
The Complainant says that the registration by the Respondent of a domain name that is confusingly similar to its FC BAYERN and FC BAYERN MUENCHEN trade marks points to a bad faith registration. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The details the Complainant has provided of its many trade mark registrations for FC BAYERN and FC BAYERN MUENCHEN establish that it has rights in these trade marks.
...
2017-05-17 - Case Details