Complainant
The Complainant makes the following contentions.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark, as it incorporates almost the entirety of the Trade Mark, replacing the letter “o” with the letter “i”. ...However, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s default.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.
...
2015-12-28 - Case Details
D2015-0997 (finding to be confusingly similar to the ACCUTANE mark, saying “[t]he expression “ok” and the “hyphen” are not enough to avoid confusion by Internet users.”); and DHL Operations B.V. v. ZLEX,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1612 (finding to be confusingly similar to the DHL mark, opining “[t]he addition of 'dg-' leaves the domain name in issue still looking confusingly like the Complainant’s mark.”).
...
2017-01-26 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established that it has rights to the distinctive Trade Mark. ...In this case the Domain Name comprises a misspelling of the Trade Mark USIBOR by replacing the letter “s” with the letter “z”. Both letters are phonetically similar and as such aurally and phonetically the Second Level Domain Name is almost identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. ...
2019-05-13 - Case Details
The Complainant claims that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its CIC and CIC BANQUES trademarks.
The Complainant claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under the first UDRP element, the Complainant must prove that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2019-09-03 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfactorily proven that it has registered trademark rights for WHATSAPP and the green phone logo.
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first requirement that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark, under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
B. ...
2019-07-25 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The present dispute pertains to the domain name .
The Complainant is the registered owner of the trademark SALTON in the United
Kingdom. ...D2000-0869, the panel compared the respondent’s domain name
with the complainant’s trademark ESTEE LAUDER and came to the conclusion
that the absence of one “e” was the only difference and concluded
that the respondent’s domain name is “confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s mark”. Similar conclusions have been arrived at by
the panels in the cases of Pharmacia & Upjohn AB v. ...
2005-11-04 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant contends that each of the eight Disputed Domain Names is confusingly similar to the Playboy Marks. ...Asia Sun, supra (finding playboymobile.com to be confusingly similar); Playboy Enters. Inter’l, Inc. v. Concas, supra ; Playboy Enters. ...
2007-03-15 - Case Details
Policy, paragraph 4(a)
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has provided evidence of its prior rights to the TIFFANY Mark, used by Complainant and its licensees for retail sale of jewelry and other goods. ...Complainant's well-known TIFFANY Mark is the dominant portion of the Domain Name, which is therefore likely to be confusingly similar to the mark. Tiffany (NJ) LLC and Tiffany and Company v. Jack Gogle. Neither the inclusion of the descriptive word “store” nor the addition of the suffix “.net” to the Complainant's mark precludes a finding that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the TIFFANY Mark. ...
2009-06-23 - Case Details
Policy, paragraph 4(a).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has provided evidence of its prior rights to the TIFFANY Mark, used by Complainant and its licensees for retail sale of jewelry and other goods. ...Complainant's TIFFANY Mark is the dominant portion of the Domain Name, which is therefore likely to be confusingly similar to the mark. See Tiffany (NJ) LLC and Tiffany and Company v. Jack Gogle,
WIPO Case No. ...
2009-06-19 - Case Details
Complainant contends that Respondent has sought to profit by using the Domain Name that is confusingly similar to Complainant's registered mark in order to profit from the goodwill associated with the registered mark.
...The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's BGC trademark. Respondent merely added the word “securities” to the end of the mark. ...
2009-09-02 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first issue in this matter is whether the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. ...This conduct is commonly referred to as “typosquatting”
and creates a virtually identical and/or confusingly similar mark to the Complainant’s
trademark (Wachovia Corporation v. Peter Carrington, WIPO
Case No. ...
2006-03-21 - Case Details
D2000-0651 (September 12, 2000) (“credit” added to
the mark HANG SENG in did not distinguish that domain
name from being confusingly similar to the HANG SENG mark); Oki Data Americas,
Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903
(November 6, 2001) (“parts” added to the mark OKIDATA in
did not distinguish that domain name from being confusingly similar to the OKIDATA
mark).
Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SHAREBUILDER trademark, a federally-registered trademark in which Complainant has rights.
...
2006-03-16 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There are two elements that must be satisfied to establish paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy: the Complainant must have rights in the particular mark or marks, and the Domain Name must be identical or confusingly similar to the respective mark(s).
...The fact of confusing, attracting and forwarding customers to competing websites by using a confusingly similar domain name is not considered by this Panel as a bona fide offering of services or goods.
...
2006-04-06 - Case Details
On the central points in issue, the Complainant contends the following:
(a) Identical or Confusingly Similar – The domain name is virtually identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CURASCRIPT mark. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There are two elements that must be proven in order for the Complainant to succeed on this threshold issue: a) the Complainant has rights in the particular mark or marks; and b) the domain name in question is identical or confusingly similar to that mark.
...
2006-05-29 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the Domain Name is identical of confusingly similar to its DANONE trademark. The Complainant claims it owns numerous trademark registrations in the DANONE trademark across the world. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To satisfy the first UDRP element, a domain name must be “identical or confusingly similar” to a trademark, in which a complainant has rights. ...
2015-02-27 - Case Details
Complainant contends the Disputed Domain Name is similar in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression to its Mark, and thus is confusingly similar to Complainant's PLAYBOY Mark. ...Prior UDRP panels have recognized that the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety may be sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a Complainant's registered mark. AT&T Corp. v. William Gormally, Case No. D2005-0758 (finding confusingly similar to ATT); Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. ...
2014-06-23 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel has allowed the Complaint to proceed in the name of both Complainants.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must demonstrate both that it “has rights” in a mark, and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that mark.
...The issue then is whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar. The Complainant says that the Respondent has, essentially, registered an amalgam of its marks.
...
2013-12-13 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel considers the disputed domain name clearly consists of a combination of the Complainants’ trademarks. ...The Respondent has chosen to use a disputed domain name confusingly similar to the Complainants’ marks in their entirety without authorization from the Complainants. ...
2014-01-28 - Case Details
The Complainant states the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its mark, except that the letter "g" in its mark has been changed to "q" in the disputed domain name, however, it looks almost identical and is confusingly similar to its mark.
...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.
...
2015-11-09 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant owns the trademark PATIENT FIRST, registered in the United States of America under Registration No. 1460408, and registered on October 6, 1987. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant does have trademark rights in the mark PATIENT FIRST by virtue of United States of America Trademark Registration No. 1460408 registered on October 6, 1987.
...
2011-07-08 - Case Details