A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the CASINO DE MONTE-CARLO 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. ...
2019-07-12 - Case Details
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s AFTON CHEMICAL trademark. It states that the reversing of the letters “i” and “e” and resulting misspelling of Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name does not serve to differentiate it from the AFTON CHEMICAL trademark, and that the disputed domain name is a classic example of “typosquatting” whereby a widely known mark is intentionally misspelled in order to create a domain name that is confusingly similar to the real name. ...The Respondent has used the disputed domain name to create an email address confusingly similar to the AFTON CHEMICAL trademark so as to impersonate the Complainant and fraudulently solicit payment from the Complainant’s customer. ...
2019-07-10 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the WAVESTONE 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. ...
2019-11-28 - 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” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...In summary, Respondent, by choosing to register and use a domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s internationally known trademarks, intended to disrupt Complainant’s business. ...
2017-08-01 - Case Details
Therefore, the Panel rules that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks. See, Coutts & Co. v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Anne Wells,
WIPO Case No. ...D2013-1246 (where was found to be confusingly similar to the MERRILL EDGE mark).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has shown successfully that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2018-01-22 - Case Details
However, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s lack of a formal Response.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Marks.
...In this case the term “by” does not dispel confusing similarity.
The Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Trade Marks. The Disputed Domain Names are also both identical to one of the New Trade Marks.
...
2019-12-11 - 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. ...First, the registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark by an entity that has no relationship to that mark may be sufficient evidence of bad faith registration. ...
2019-08-27 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark or trademarks and, second, is the Disputed Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to those trademarks.
...It is well established that a domain name that wholly incorporates a trademark is confusingly similar to that trademark for purposes of the Policy. See Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2019-07-26 - Case Details
Only if all three elements are fulfilled can the Panel grant the remedy requested by the Complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP requires two elements to be proved. A disputed domain name should be (i) identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, (ii) in which a complainant has rights.
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademark.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP is fulfilled.
...
2019-10-11 - Case Details
D2012-1395, where the domain name was held to be confusingly similar to the KAREN MILLEN trademark; Belstaff S.R.L. v. Jason Lau, Sharing,
WIPO Case No. D2012‑0783, where the domain name was held to be confusingly similar to the BELSTAFF trademark; Lime Wire LLC v. ...Additionally, it is well established that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” may be disregarded when considering whether the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
In light of the above, the Panel considers the Disputed Domain Name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s WHATSAPP trademark. ...
2019-09-12 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends the following:
- The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the CANADIAN TIRE trademarks.
- The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. ...D2005-0284, where the domain name
was found confusingly similar to the KATE SPADE trademark (citing Teleplace,
Inc. v. Oliveira, NAF Claim No. FA0010000095835 (December 4, 2000 ) and
InfoSpace.com v. ...
2006-09-04 - Case Details
AAIM, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0403.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy the Complainant must establish rights in a trademark and secondly that the domain name in dispute is confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...The use of “strivectin” in the domain name in dispute results in a confusingly similar use of the Complainant’s trademarks for and including STRIVECTIN.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the domain name in dispute is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademarks for or including STRIVECTIN.
...
2006-07-05 - Case Details
Complainant
In addition to the factual background set forth above, Complaint contends, inter alia, as follows:
- The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the MICROGAMING Trademark because the MICROGAMING Trademark forms the dominant element of the Disputed Domain Name, and the combination of the word “Microgaming” with the words “Fortune Lounge” creates a domain name that cannot be anything but confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known MICROGAMING Trademark...Policy, paragraph 4(a).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based upon the trademark registrations cited by Complainant, it is obvious that the MICROGAMING Trademark is a registered trademark. ...
2008-09-17 - Case Details
D2004-0805 (involving a finding that was confusingly similar to the complainant’s ACCOMPLIA drug brand), and Sanofi-Aventis v. US-Meds.com,
WIPO Case No. ...D2006-0035, involving the domain name <4-valium.com>, the panel answered that question in the negative, noting that the respondent’s online pharmacy was different from a pharmacy on the street because it was accessed not by walking in, but by clicking on a website bearing a domain name that was confusingly similar to the complainant’s well-known brand. The panel stated, “Using a name confusingly similar to another’s famous name to attract customers to a site or place not authorized by that other, for commercial gain, cannot be considered bona fide use”.
...
2007-09-20 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(a) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the domain names and are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark TAJ MAHAL. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established its rights in the TAJ MAHAL Trademarks in connection with casino and gaming services, by virtue of the U.S. trademark registrations.
...
2007-05-21 - 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
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
Complainant
Complainant has exclusive rights in its MARLBORO trademark relative to the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MARLBORO trademark.
Respondent has no legitimate interest or right in the disputed domain name.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established that it owns prior rights in the MARLBORO trademark and the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MARLBORO trademark.
...
2013-08-30 - Case Details
A. 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”. ...
2014-01-21 - Case Details