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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Complainant
The Complainant says that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its CASINO DE MONACO trade mark. The mere addition of the number “24” to the word “monaco” does not prevent it from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark as this number simply indicates that Internet users can play on the Respondent’s gambling platform 24 hours a day. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided details of its CASINO DE MONACO trade mark registration, which establish its rights in this mark.
...
2020-12-10 - 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
The first Complainant alleges that the first domain name, , is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark HOTMAIL in which it has rights, that the Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interest in the first domain name, and that the first domain name is registered and being used in bad faith by the Respondent. ...The second Complainant alleges that the second domain name, , is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark MSNBC, in which it has rights, that the Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interest in the second domain name, and that the second domain name is registered and being used in bad faith by the Respondent. ...
2002-08-27 - Case Details
D2002-0439 (ordering transfer of
and because confusingly similar to );
Pfizer Inc. v. Phizer’s Antiques, WIPO Case
No. D2002-0410 (ordering transfer of because confusingly
similar to Pfizer); OfficeMax, Inc. v. ...D2002-0354 (ordering transfer of because confusingly
similar to OFFICEMAX); Time Warner Entertainment Co. v. Zuccarini, WIPO
Case No. D2001-0184 (ordering transfer of , ,
because confusingly similar to Harry Potter, Looney Tunes,
and Scooby-Doo).
...
2002-10-01 - Case Details