Complainant
Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is identical with and confusingly similar to the MicroApp Marks because it incorporates the whole of the phrases “microapp.com” and “microapp.” ...Complainant further contends that the Disputed Domain Name is identical with and confusingly similar to the trademark pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is identical with and confusingly similar to the MicroApp Marks because it incorporates the whole of the phrases “microapp.com” and “microapp” with only the non-distinctive additional phrase “www.”
...
2011-07-05 - Case Details
The Panel has no hesitation in finding that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights”).
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ARMANI trademark in which Complainant has rights. ...The addition of the terms “black” and “label” do not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the ARMANI trademark to avoid a finding of confusing similarity. The combination of similar terms and a trademark to form a domain name was held to be confusingly similar to the trademark at issue. ...
2011-07-01 - Case Details
As the Respondent has failed to submit a response to the Complainant’s contentions, the Panel may choose to accept as true all of the reasonable allegations of the Complaint, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. null John Zuccarini, Country Walk,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0487.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark LOVABLE.
...Considering that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark LOVABLE, the first requirement of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...
2011-08-30 - Case Details
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 trade mark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...The Panel further concludes that the disputed domain name , being a direct phonetic transliteration into pinyin of the雅漾trade mark, is confusingly similar to the雅漾trade mark.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Trade Marks.
...
2011-07-28 - Case Details
Complainant
(1) The Disputed Domain Name Is Identical or Confusingly Similar to the Complainant’s Trademark
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark to which the Complainant has rights.
...The Panel holds that the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. ...
2011-01-25 - Case Details
The Domain Names in dispute are each confusingly similar to the Marks as the Domain Names consist only of the Marks and the generic word “recipes.” ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant registered the Marks in various jurisdictions around the world. The Domain Names incorporate the Marks and in the Panel’s view create sufficient similarity to be confusingly similar to the Marks. ...
2012-02-21 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainants argue that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the RAPID SHARE trademark, owned by the Complainants, seeing that they incorporate the trademark as a whole.
...Further, the Respondent argued that the websites he operated under the disputed domain names were non-profit websites.
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.
...
2010-06-17 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the NATIONAL trademark, owned by the Complainant, seeing that it incorporates the trademark as a whole.
...Respondent
The Respondent did not file a formal reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
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.
...
2010-06-02 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain names are all confusingly similar to at least one of the Complainant’s trade marks (as listed in Factual Background above). ...However, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondents' default.
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 Complainant’s trade marks.
...
2015-02-02 - Case Details
The disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
B. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
C. ...Nonetheless, the Complainant retains the burden of proving the three requisite elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
A. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i))
It is held that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trade mark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2012-07-12 - 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 AAA Trademark. ...D2011-1017 (finding the domain name confusingly similar to the trademark GUCCI).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has proven the first element of the Policy.
...
2012-10-12 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.3 The Complainant has produced sufficient evidence of ownership of trademark registrations namely, German, Community and International trademark registrations in the words JACK WOLFSKIN which was attached to the Complaint. ...Huang Yan Jin, supra cited by the Complainant where in similar circumstances the disputed domain name in that case was held to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark by reason of incorporating entirely the Complainant’s trademark JACK WOLFSKIN despite the additional letter “e” in the disputed domain name.
6.4 Accordingly, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established that the disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark in accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP Policy.
...
2012-08-31 - Case Details
Furthermore, in making an enquiry as to whether a trade mark is identical or confusingly similar to a domain name, the domain extension, in this case “.com” should be disregarded (see Rohde & Schwarz GmbH & Co. ...There is no plausible explanation as to how the Respondent could have come up with the confusingly similar Disputed Domain Name but to suggest an association with the Complainant’s mark and business.
...
2013-07-03 - Case Details
The Complainant submits the grounds for these proceedings listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its VOITH trademarks. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Policy simply requires the Complainant to demonstrate that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. ...
2016-02-16 - Case Details
Policy, paragraph 4(a).)
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Given Complainant’s trademark registrations and long use of the AAA trademarks in the United States and worldwide, the Panel finds that Complainant has trademark rights in the AAA mark.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. Accordingly, the Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
...
2013-01-08 - Case Details
The issue which the Panel has to decide in respect of each domain name in dispute is whether it is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark “KAZAA”.
The Complainant contends:
1. All the domain names are “confusingly similar” to the mark KAZAA in that each represents a “slight variation” of the word “Kazaa”. ...The Panel considers that it should approach each of the domain names and consider whether each is confusingly similar on their face. Whether or not, letters differ between the mark KAZAA and the domain name complained upon is merely part of the test which the Panel has to decide i.e. is the domain name confusingly similar? ...
2005-01-12 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant makes the following assertions:
i. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the SWAROVSKI Marks. ...It is also recognized that where the misspelling of a domain name is phonetically similar to the trademark then the domain name is considered to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark. ...
2012-03-06 - Case Details
Respondent has not contested the assertions by Complaint that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the GODADDY Marks.
As prior United States courts and 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 a complainant’s registered mark. ...Therefore, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the GODDADY Marks pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
Rights or Legitimate Interest.
...
2007-10-12 - Case Details
The
Panel finds that the addition of a term “crypto” in the present case does not prevent finding the disputed
domain name 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.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-06-21 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied in the present case, as follows:
(a) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trademarks, since it reproduces the word element “intesa sanpaolo” used in the Trademarks in its entirety, with the mere inversion of letters “a” and “o” in the second verbal element. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is required to establish the two following elements: (1) that it has trademark rights, and, if so, (2) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark(s).
...
2016-10-03 - Case Details