They argue that the disputed domain name is identical to the company name Omya UK Limited of the fist Complainant, and confusingly similar with the company name Omya AG of the second Complainant. Furthermore, they contend that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a host of other trademarks owned by Omya AG, such as (but not exclusively) BRITOMYA, OMYABOND, OMYACARB and OMYACURE.
...C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trademarks. The disputed domain name reproduces the trademarks OMYA in its entirety. ...
2012-04-05 - Case Details
Having considered the Complaint and the available evidence, the Panel finds the following:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry – a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trade mark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trade mark.
...The Panel has already found the disputed domain names to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark. The Panel finds that the likelihood of confusion as to source is therefore highly likely. ...
2012-07-16 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that a domain name may be 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.
...Therefore, the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has rights. As a result, the Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2012-08-27 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that a domain name may be 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.
...Therefore, the Panel finds the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has rights. As a result, the Panel considers paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy to be satisfied.
...
2012-08-27 - Case Details
Complainant has (summarized) stated the following.
The Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Trade Mark as they are all typo-variants of the Trade Mark. With the exception of a single domain name, the remaining 30 disputed domain names differ from the Trade Mark only by a single character making them confusingly similar in appearance.
...International Electronic Communications Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that all the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Trade Mark for the purposes of the first requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. ...
2012-08-20 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the LEGO mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...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.
...
2012-08-14 - 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.
...D2004-0117 (a domain name incorporating a well-known trademark combined with a descriptive term is confusingly similar to the trademark); Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. v. Wei-Chun Hsia,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0923 (The addition of a descriptive or generic word to a trademark will not avoid a determination that the domain name at issue is confusingly similar).
...
2014-03-13 - Case Details
D2001-0903 in which the panel found that the fact that a domain name incorporates a complainant’s registered trade mark is sufficient to establish that a domain name is confusingly similar despite the addition of other words. The Complainant says that these decisions all support the conclusion that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark TYSON and TYSON FOODS.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant owns the trade mark TYSON and its earliest registration dates from 1982. ...
2013-05-27 - Case Details
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.
...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to many registered trademarks in which Complainant has rights. Thus, the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2013-10-28 - Case Details
That said, the Panel finds that this is a clear case of domain name abuse as shown herein.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry - a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trade mark, followed by an assessment of whether the trade mark and domain name are identical or confusingly similar.
...The remaining question is whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. For the purposes of testing confusing similarity, the generic top-level domain, “.com,” can be ignored4. ...
2011-01-27 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through registration and use. The evidence clearly establishes the BANG & OLUFSEN brand and the Trade Mark as being very well known.
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. UDRP panels have consistently held that domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark for purposes of the Policy “[w]hen 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. ...
2010-05-19 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This question raises two issues: (1) does the Complainant have rights in a trademark or service mark; and (2) is the domain name identical or confusingly similar to such trademark or service mark.
...Concerning the second issue, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark. First, the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety. ...
2013-03-28 - Case Details
Having considered the Complaint and the available evidence, the Panel finds the following:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry – a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trade mark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trade mark.
...The Panel finds the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2013-07-08 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in respect of the BOOZ ALLEN marks on the basis of its various registrations around the world including in the USA since 1970.
...The Panel accordingly finds that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the BOOZ ALLEN marks in which the Complainant has rights, and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2013-07-01 - Case Details
Having considered the Complaint and the available evidence, the Panel finds the following:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry – a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trade mark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trade mark.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2013-11-29 - Case Details
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. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-12-18 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademarks as the
Domain Name is composed of the main name of the trademarks owned by the Complainant ELECNOR with
the addition of a term “group” which does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity.
...In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademarks. Therefore, the Complainant has established the first element of Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(i) of the
ADR Rules.
...
2023-11-22 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Marks.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-11-01 - Case Details
Based on the evidence submitted by the Complainant and, in particular, with regards to the content of the
relevant provisions of the Policy (paragraph 4(a), (b), and (c)), the Panel concludes as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must establish that the disputed
domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a 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...
2023-10-18 - Case Details
i) The Complainant claims that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its earlier well-
known trademarks, since the disputed domain names reproduce its CARREFOUR trademarks
together with the letter “b” and the word “panel”, respectively. ...The Panel will further analyze the potential concurrence of the above circumstances.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant owns exclusive trademark rights in CARREFOUR which predate
the registration of the two disputed domain names.
...
2023-09-05 - Case Details