The Respondent does not seek to defend the contention made by the Complainant that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s KIRKLAND SIGNATURE trademarks, nor the contention that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is established that the Complainant has rights in the trademark KIRKLAND SIGNATURE necessary for a finding of identity or confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2013-11-19 - 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
As a result, the Panel encounters no difficulty in concluding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CIALIS trademark. See, Weider Publications, Inc. v. Nextlevel.com,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0050 (finding to be confusingly similar to the MEN’S FITNESS mark); The British Broadcasting Corporation v. Jaime Renteria,
WIPO Case No. ...
2013-09-20 - Case Details
Complainant
The Respondent operates a website at “www.canadiantiremastercard.net”, which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, CANADIAN TIRE and the balance of the CANADIAN TIRE trademarks. ...The Complainant need only prove that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its mark. In this case, the primary emphasis in the disputed domain name relates to the Complainant’s mark. ...
2011-06-24 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Complainants contend that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s common law trademarks for RAOUL MALAK, ANSAN, ANSAN TRAFFIC and ANSAN GROUP.
...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainants submit that the Respondent has registered and is using the 12 disputed domain names in bad faith, because (i) the Respondent has registered the set of confusingly similar domain names to divert consumers to its defamatory website; (ii) the Respondent has registered confusingly similar domain names to interfere with the business of the Complainants; and (iii) the Respondent has registered confusingly similar domain names and deliberately concealed its identity.
...
2013-02-12 - Case Details
Complainant
(1) The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's marks.
Complainant has been doing business in Florida under the name San Giorgio Coffee, Inc. since December 1990. ...As a general matter, a domain name is likely to be deemed confusingly similar to a mark if it incorporates the mark or a variation of the mark.
The Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to the SAN GIORGIO ESPRESSO COFFEE mark. ...
2010-06-30 - 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
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
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established to the Panel’s satisfaction that it has rights in the trademark CANADIAN TIRE. ...In these circumstances, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy have been satisfied.
...
2013-03-01 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established to the Panel’s satisfaction that it has rights in the trademark CANADIAN TIRE. ...In these circumstances, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy have been satisfied.
...
2013-03-01 - Case Details
Furthermore, it is argued that the mere fact that the Respondent registered the confusingly similar disputed Domain Name without authorization is in itself evidence of bad faith registration. ...Accordingly, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainants have established the disputed Domain Name to be confusingly similar to the Complainants’ registered trademark in accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2012-08-27 - Case Details
Therefore, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is similar, and confusingly so, to the Complainant’s BARCLAYCARD mark. Moreover, because the term, “barclay”, is nearly identical to “barclays” and is the primary and dominant term in the disputed domain name, the Panel also concludes that the name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BARCLAYS mark as well. ...D2011-1584 (finding to be confusingly similar to the BARCLAYS service mark); and Gardline Surveys Ltd. v. Domain Finance Ltd., NAF Claim No. ...
2012-12-20 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainants to show that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainants have rights.
...The result is that the Complainants have shown that the above disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainants have rights.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainants had shown that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainants have rights.
...
2013-04-03 - 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
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
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There are two requirements that the Complainant must establish under this paragraph, namely: that it has rights in a trademark and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark.
...The Panel agrees with the previous UDRP panels and concludes that adding descriptive and geographical terms to a domain name incorporating entirely a trademark, does not prevent the domain name from being confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered trademarks, therefore the disputed domain name , after disregarding the lack of spaces which is irrelevant in domain names and the “.com” generic top level domain, is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CREDIT MUTUEL trademark.
...
2010-10-07 - Case Details
Complainant must also establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its mark. Complainant does not argue that the domain name is identical to its THE PAMPERED CHEF mark. ...See Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv).
As noted above, Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to the THE PAMPERED CHEF mark. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that Respondent’s site attracts visitors who are actually seeking Complainant’s site. ...
2004-11-02 - Case Details
a) Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant alleges that the domain names and are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks “COSTCO”.
...The Panel finds that the domain names and the trademark are confusingly similar, based upon the following factors:
- the Complainant’s trademark “COSTCO” is embodied in the disputed domain name and the addition of the generic term such as “tires” is descriptive and does not mitigate the phonetical and visual confusing similarity,
- the Complainant’s trademark “Costco” is visually and phonetically
confusingly similar to the disputed domain name , except for
the fact that the “c” and the “t” are inverted. ...
2004-06-17 - Case Details
The Complainants’ assertions
The Complainant submits that the Respondent's domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark for the following reasons:
- The second level domain MICRONCOMMUNICATIONS is confusingly similar to the Micron Trademarks. ...Therefore, the only basis on which the Complainant might succeed is if the domain name is confusingly similar to one or other of the Complainant’s marks. Here that Complainant pleads the following:
"The second level domain MICRONCOMMUNICATIONS is confusingly similar to the Micron Trademarks. ...
2001-07-25 - Case Details
Complainant’s Proof
(i) Domain Name Identical or Confusingly Similar to Trademark
Complainant has proved that it is the owner of the rights in trademarks "MICROSOFT" and "MSN". ...Microsoft is the owner of the trademarks; 2.)The domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks "MICROSOFT" and "MSN"; 3.) Respondent has no rights and no legitimate interest in respect to the domain names; 4). ...
2004-03-25 - Case Details