Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark.
The Panel must decide whether or not the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark. ...This is, “The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. The addition of another letter “N” does not change the way in which the word is pronounced. ...
2010-10-20 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark ALLEGRA, as the prefixes “buy” and “generic” are generic terms, which do not influence significantly the overall impression of the Domain Name which is dominated by the term ALLEGRA. ...It is well established that domain suffixes are disregarded for the purpose of this comparison.
The Domain Name is therefore confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ALLEGRA trademark.
The Panel concludes that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2004-12-23 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under Rule 4(a)(i) the Complainant must show that the domain name at issue is “identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights”.
...D2006-1212, “‘[t]yposquatted’ domain names, if they have their desired effect, are by definition confusingly similar to trademarks”.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
...
2008-03-14 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its NO NONSENSE trademarks because it reproduces identically and entirely the NO NONSENSE mark. ...Despite assertions by Respondent that the disputed domain name and content thereon are not similar to Complainant’s NO NONSENSE mark, the Panel has found that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to this mark. ...
2020-07-03 - Case Details
However, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s lack of a response.
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.
...Where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trade mark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark (see section 1.7 of WIPO Overview 3.0). The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.
...
2020-04-24 - Case Details
In addition, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the BIOMERIEUX trademark as it fully incorporates the latter, being the only difference the additional "x" at the end.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Names , , , , , and are confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark BIOMERIEUX. ...
2018-10-12 - Case Details
In the Panel’s view, both of the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered ITUNES trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has used the disputed domain names in order to redirect Internet traffic to a commercial gambling website. ...In this case, the Respondent has acquired and used domain names that are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark in order to redirect Internet traffic to a gambling website, apparently deriving an income thereby. ...
2011-10-06 - Case Details
Other prior Panels have
consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a
famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith.
...Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
B. Respondent
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-02-07 - Case Details
Moreover, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark for the
purposes of the Policy. In particular, the Domain Name adds the word “my” to the acronym “pba”, which
itself is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PBGC 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...
2024-02-14 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the TERADATA trademark.
The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the TERADATA trademark. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...
2022-02-18 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel must determine whether the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
...Here, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, because the Domain Name differs from the mark by omitting only the “s” at the end of the word “service” (i.e., moving from the plural to singular case).
...
2017-05-11 - Case Details
Respondent asserts that the Domain Name is not confusingly similar to the Marks because at the time of registration of the Domain Name, Complainant had not yet registered a trademark for an EAMOBILEGAMES mark. ...Respondent asserts that the Domain Name is not confusingly similar to the Marks because at the time of registration of the Domain Name, Complainant had not yet registered a trademark for EAMOBILEGAMES Mark. ...
2006-08-28 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar to a Mark in which Complainant has Rights
The Complainant does not have any registered trademark. Therefore, it can only satisfy the first requirement by establishing that it has common law rights in a mark to which the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar.
It is not suggested that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to “Chelsea and Westminster Hospital”; the Complainant relies solely on its use of the abbreviated name “Chelwest”.
...
2007-11-30 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ROTHSCHILD Trademarks for the following reasons:
(a) In relation to the disputed domain name
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is a combination of the name ROTHSCHILD, which is identical to the ROTHSCHILD Trademark, and the word “banks”, which describes banking services, one of the principal services provided by the Complainant. ...Thirdly, the Complainant has adduced evidence and proved that by using confusingly similar disputed domain names, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s websites. ...
2006-11-24 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under Policy paragraph 4(a)(i), the Complainant must demonstrate: (a) it has rights in the Mark; and (b) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Mark. ...D2008-1302 (“expresscripts.com” held confusingly similar to EXPRESS SCRIPTS).
Panels, under the UDRP, have consistently found the use of terms that are a slight variation from a registered mark to be “confusingly similar” and/or “virtually identical” to that mark. ...
2012-04-13 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the
LINCOLN ELECTRIC trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-07-17 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold inquiry: a threshold investigation into whether a
complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-12-05 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends the following.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's
SCREENING EAGLE trademark.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-01-19 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold inquiry: a threshold investigation into whether a
complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the first element of the Policy has been established.
...
2025-04-11 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold inquiry: a threshold investigation into whether a
complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
7. Decision...
2024-09-13 - Case Details