A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark and, second, is the Disputed Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. ...Finally, the registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a trademark by an entity that has no relationship to that mark may be suggestive of bad faith. ...
2020-10-05 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, whether the Complainant has rights in a relevant trademark and, second, whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
...The Respondent registered the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, GRAINGER, with the knowledge of the Complainant’s famous business and its trademark.
...
2020-09-03 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends that (i) the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks; (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name; and (iii) Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith.
...In Knot We Trust LTD,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0340.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under the first element of the Policy, Complainant must prove that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks in which Complainant has rights (paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).
...
2020-09-30 - Case Details
The contact details that the Respondent has provided to the Registrar are non-existent.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the PLAY AMO trademark, and the evidence in the case file shows that it resolves to a gambling website. ...As discussed above, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the PLAY AMO trademark. This trademark was registered after the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. ...
2020-09-22 - 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 SEFIA trademark, 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.
...
2021-06-08 - 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, is the Disputed Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. ...Thus, the Panel concludes that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s the SEBGROUP Mark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant.
...
2021-06-02 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the SALESFORCE 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. ...
2019-11-01 - 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, is the Disputed Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
...D2004-0117 (a domain name incorporating a well-known trademark combined with a geographically descriptive term is confusingly similar to the trademark); Inter-IKEA Systems B.V. v. Hoon Huh,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0438 (the addition of the term “korea” in does not prevent the domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark).
...
2019-10-25 - 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
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
These words do not serve to prevent the disputed domain names from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s PRINCIPAL service marks.
The Complainant also says that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain names. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has produced evidence of its trade and service mark registrations for PRINCIPAL as well as a number of variants in which “PRINCIPAL” is the primary component. ...
2018-10-02 - Case Details
Incorporation of the BROWNRUDNICK Mark is sufficient to establish that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the BROWNRUDNICK Mark.
Complainant further alleges that the Disputed Domain Name is identical and confusingly similar to the BROWNRUDNICK Mark and that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...Complainant further contends that the Disputed Domain Name is identical with and confusingly similar to the BROWNRUDNICK Mark pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
Numerous UDRP decisions have recognized that incorporating a trademark in its entirety can be sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark. ...
2018-09-25 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the RECON 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. ...
2019-04-12 - 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
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
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.
...On the basis of facts and circumstance discussed above the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the CHATROULETTE trademark of the Complainant and that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2018-04-11 - 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