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 or identical to the Complainant’s registered trademark, BMW, in light of the fact that it wholly incorporates the Complainant’s mark.
...The Respondent has failed to file a response in these proceedings and is therefore in default and the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the available evidence submitted by the Complainant in accordance with the Rules, paragraph 14(b).
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.
...
2016-07-22 - Case Details
Moreover, the Respondent’s registration of the
Domain Name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark, which
is widely known and has been used in commerce for more than 53 years, is further
evidence of bad faith. ...The Panel notes that the Respondent has failed to respond to the Complainant within the stipulated time and, as such, does not contest the facts asserted by the Complainant in the Complaint.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name at issue, ,
is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's “TIAA-CREF”
marks registered in the United States and used in international commerce in
connection with the Complainant’s financial services of various kinds
for many years. ...
2006-02-06 - Case Details
It is well established that a domain name is confusingly similar to a mark where the domain name includes the entire mark, as well as a merely descriptive term. ...The following findings are sufficient to find in favour of the Complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is clearly confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known trademark registration for MICROSOFT as well as to its domain name . ...
2011-08-02 - Case Details
D2000-0662). Further,
a domain name is deemed confusingly similar to a trade mark when a search engine
query for such trade mark pulls up such domain name (see Wal-mart Stores
v. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove (a) that it has rights in a trade mark or service mark, and (b) that the Disputed Domain Name is identical to or confusingly similar to such trade mark or service mark.
...
2004-05-13 - Case Details
i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the
Complainant has rights
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to its
trademarks since both incorporate the DAKINE mark in its entirety. ...The above three elements will each be discussed in further detail below.
page 4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is required to establish: (1) that it owns rights in a trademark or service mark, and, if so, (2)
that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to its trademarks.
...
2023-01-19 - Case Details
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules directs the Panel to decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element that the Complainants must establish is that the disputed domain name is identical with, or confusingly similar to, the Complainants’ trademark rights.
...In that decision, however, the learned panelist found that the domain name was confusingly similar to the trademark TATA. It does not provide any support for the Respondent’s contention.
...
2021-09-02 - Case Details
In particular, the Complainant asserts that:
The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
- The disputed domain names are confusingly similar or identical to the Complainant's registered trademark, MANULIFE, in light of the fact that they wholly incorporate the Complainant's mark...The Respondent has failed to file a response in these proceedings and is therefore in default and 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.
...
2016-09-20 - 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” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...Given the widespread reputation of the ASP marks, the confusingly similar domain name , as well as the similar website layout, ASP image logo and product photos, the Panel finds that the public is likely to be confused into thinking that the disputed domain name has a connection with Complainant, contrary to fact. ...
2018-09-24 - Case Details
The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name disrupts the Complainant’s business and is a bad faith registration because the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and the Respondent’s web site offers counterfeit goods.
...Elements of a Claim
(i) Domain Name Identical or Confusingly Similar to the Complainant’s Trademark
To prove the first element, the Complainant must prove that (1) it has rights in a trademark and (2) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to this trademark.
...
2019-04-05 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant owns the FREY WILLE trademark. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2017-07-04 - Case Details
D2000-0583, the panel had ordered the transfer of the domain name to the complainant by determining that the domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark by observing as follows:
“The Respondents’ registration, consisting of the Complainants’ name with the suffix, ‘sucks’ (plus ‘.com’), is not identical to the Complainants’ marks and the question arises whether the registration is confusingly similar to those marks.
...Thus, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademarks.
The first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is accordingly proven by the Complainant.
...
2016-05-24 - Case Details
Toyrus.com, NAF Case No. FA150406 ( held confusingly similar to TOYS “R” US mark despite deletion of the letter “s” from “toys” and the quotation marks around the “r”).
This Panel therefore finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph (4)(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2011-08-16 - Case Details
According to Complainant, it is inconceivable that Respondent was unaware of the existence of the registered trademark or the brand it represents when it registered the confusingly similar Domain Name. Indeed, the well-known character of a trademark with which a domain name is confusingly similar is, in itself, evidence of bad faith registration.
...Considering the trademark’s unique and distinct characteristics, it is highly unlikely to this Panel that Respondent was unaware of the existence of the registered trademark or the brand it represents when it registered the confusingly similar Domain Name.
Indeed, the well-known character of a trademark with which a domain name is confusingly similar is, in itself, evidence of bad faith registration. ...
2012-04-24 - Case Details
The Panel finds that all five domain names are confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has put forward no evidence that it holds a right or legitimate interest in the domain names. ...The Respondent’s conduct in knowingly adopting confusingly similar and infringing domain names was not, in the Panel’s view, bona fide use, and was therefore not capable of conferring a right or legitimate interest in the domain names.
...
2003-08-21 - Case Details
i) 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 identical or confusingly similar to its
trademarks since it incorporates the AMERICAN AIRLINES mark in its entirety, changing the mark only by
adding a letter “b” in “airlines” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. ...The above three elements will each be discussed in further detail below.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is required to establish: (1) that it owns rights in a trademark or service mark, and, if so, (2)
that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademarks.
...
2023-11-03 - Case Details
Many UDRP panels have found that a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s
trademark for purposes of the first element, where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed
domain name. ...Many UDRP panels have found that a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark for purposes of the first element, where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. ...
2023-07-18 - Case Details
i) 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 identical or confusingly similar to its
CARREFOUR and CARREFOUR MARKET trademarks, which are incorporated in their entirety in the
disputed domain name. ...page 4
The above three elements will each be discussed in further detail below.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is required to establish: (1) that it owns rights in a trademark or service mark, and, if so, (2)
that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademarks.
...
2023-07-07 - Case Details
Complainant
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the
Complainant has rights.
The Complainant makes the following assertions.
...Complainant
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant makes the following assertions.
6. ...
2024-12-26 - Case Details
See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.2.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires a complainant to establish first, that it has rights in a trade mark or service mark, and secondly, that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trade mark or service mark.
...It is generally regarded as prima facie evidence of no rights or legitimate interests if a complainant shows that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark, that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and that the complainant has not authorized the respondent to use its mark (or an expression which is confusingly similar to its mark), whether in the disputed domain name or otherwise. ...
2020-05-12 - Case Details
D2000-0022 ( and confusingly similar to CHRISTIAN DIOR); Toyota Motor Sales USA v. Rafi Hamid dba ABC Automobile Buyer,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0032 ( and confusingly similar to LEXUS).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights, in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...
2019-06-05 - Case Details