The Complainant essentially contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s intensively used trademarks, as it incorporates the most distinctive part of the Complainant’s
ONLYFANS trademark, with the addition of the merely descriptive words “site rip” to the disputed domain
name. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
registered trademarks for ONLYFANS, and concludes that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of
the first element under the Policy.
...
2023-04-14 - 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
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
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
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
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
(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
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
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
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
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
Complainant
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the FREEMAN
marks, in which Complainant has rights. The addition of “www” in front of Complainant’s mark FREEMAN is
a mere addition of non-distinctive text and is therefore confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
...The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar...
2024-06-07 - 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 TETRA PAK
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 relevant UDRP rights in a trademark and the disputed
domain name must be identical or confusingly similar to such trademark.
...
2023-11-16 - Case Details
In particular, the Complainant asserts that:
(1) the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s GENENTECH trademark,
since they incorporate this mark in its entirety. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-11-01 - Case Details
Further, according to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences from the
Respondent’s failure to submit a Response as it considers appropriate.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element that the Complainant must establish is that the disputed domain name is identical with, or
confusingly similar to, trademark rights of the Complainant.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-09-11 - Case Details
Complainant
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The disputed
domain name fully incorporates the well-known Complainant’s trademark and is confusingly similar to such
mark. ...The
Panel finds that the addition of the terms “Holland” and “bv” to the disputed domain name does not prevent
finding it confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
Considering the above the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademark, therefore, the Complainant has established its case under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2023-08-01 - 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.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-06-13 - Case Details