A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in the Complainant’s Trademark based on the trademark
registration listed above in Section 4.
...As such, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
Trademark, and accordingly, paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2023-03-28 - Case Details
The Complainant must still prove each of the three elements required by Policy paragraph 4(a)”).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Ownership of a nationally or regionally registered trademark serves as prima facie evidence that Complainant has trademark rights for the purposes of standing to file this Complaint. ...The only remaining question under the first element of the Policy is whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s BOURSORAMA trademark. In this Complaint, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BOURSORAMA trademark because, disregarding the “.website” generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), the trademark is contained in its entirety within the disputed domain name. ...
2022-02-21 - Case Details
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. ...It has also been established by prior UDRP panels that incorporating a trademark in its entirety into a domain name can be sufficient to establish that the domain name is confusingly similar to a registered trademark. Numerous UDRP panels have recognised that 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. ...
2022-03-02 - Case Details
Thus, although Respondent has failed to provide the Center with its response to the Complaint, the burden to
prove that the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are fulfilled by a preponderance of the
evidence, remains with the Complainant.
A. Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar
To prove this element the Complainant must have trade or service mark rights and the Domain Name must
be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade or service mark. ...Discussion and Findings
A. Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-03-23 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), the Complainant shall prove that the Disputed Domain Name is
identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-11-24 - Case Details
Policy, paragraph 4(a).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based upon the trademark registrations cited by Complainant, it is apparent that Complainant has rights in
and to the ARISTA Trademark.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-12-29 - 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”. ...Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondent is currently using the confusingly similar disputed domain name with the intention to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website.
...
2021-04-27 - 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 Actavis trademarks, 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.
...
2021-05-11 - Case Details
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s domain name and the Domain Name is likely to cause, and intended to cause, confusion among members of the public and others. ...The Panel will deal with each of the requirements in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the Domain Name is (i) identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, (ii) in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2021-04-06 - Case Details
Considering these requirements, the Panel finds as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel holds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. ...The Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark and the Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2021-03-30 - Case Details
Considering these requirements, the Panel rules as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. ...The Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark and the Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2021-03-24 - Case Details
- The disputed domain name, , is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s E LECLERC mark, as the mark is wholly included within that domain name. ...The only difference between that domain name and the disputed domain name is the inclusion of a dash to substitute for a space between the two sections of the trademark, whereas the disputed domain name merely eliminates the space. Clearly, if the former domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's E LECLERC mark (which this Panel agrees it is), the disputed domain name in this proceeding also is confusingly similar to that mark. ...
2021-04-12 - 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
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
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trade Marks. ...The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s primary domain name ; the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complaint’s career website ; the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s customer service subdomain .
...
2021-11-01 - Case Details
In particular, the Complainant asserts that:
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
- The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered THERMOMIX trademark, in light of the fact that it wholly incorporates the Complainant’s mark with the addition of the letters “mj”.
...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.
...
2021-12-16 - Case Details
As such, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
Trademark, and accordingly, paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-02-28 - Case Details
It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, where appropriate, will
decide consistent with the consensus views captured therein.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it should be established that the disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademarks and that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is met.
...
2023-01-20 - Case Details
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark
LAMBORGHINI, since it reproduces it in its entirety and is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name.
...Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark of the
Complainant and that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2023-03-21 - Case Details
D2022-0723 (finding to be confusingly similar to the
VARENGOLD mark).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proved that the disputed domain name is identical or
confusingly similar to a service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...The Parties
A. Complainant
B. Respondent
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith...
2023-03-09 - Case Details