As to whether the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the NATIXIS trademark, the Panel
observes that the Domain Name comprises: (a) the word “natix”, (b) followed by “investments”, and (c) the
country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.eu”.
...In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademark.
Therefore, the Panel holds that the Complainant has established the first element of Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(i)
of the ADR Rules.
...
2023-08-21 - Case Details
The third element a complainant must establish
is that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establish that the disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark as it includes the
Complainant’s trademark in its entirety combined with the term “tradelink”. ...
2023-06-27 - Case Details
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s JONES LANG LASALLE mark as it consists solely of the JONES LANG LASALLE mark in its entirety. ...Complainant also argues that Respondent’s bad faith is established by Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name to redirect web users to Respondent’s website at “www.digitaltown.com”. ...
2018-08-06 - Case Details
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established that it has registered rights to the Trade Mark.
...It is viewed as a standard registration requirement.
The Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy therefore are fulfilled.
...
2020-02-17 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant makes the following contentions.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. The Trade Mark is the dominant portion of the Disputed Domain Name. ...Respondent
The Respondent makes the following contentions.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Disputed Domain Name is not confusingly similar to the Trade Mark because it combines the Trade Mark with the word “India”.
...
2018-04-25 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark. ...The Panel accepts that the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the trademark SCHIBSTED in which the Complainant has rights. It is well established that the addition of the gTLD “.com” or “.icu” does not avoid a finding that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the trademark SCHIBSTED.
...
2019-03-22 - Case Details
The third element a complainant must establish is that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...The Panel finds that the addition of such terms to the Complainant’s trademark does not avoid the possibility that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s respective trademark and hence the first element of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...
2019-01-28 - Case Details
D2020-0516 (finding to be confusingly similar to the BENEFITFOCUS mark); and Valero Energy Corporation and Valero Marketing and Supply Company v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy LLC / Rene Rozados,
WIPO Case No. D2020-0021 (finding to be confusingly similar to the VALERO mark).
As reasoned above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2020-07-16 - Case Details
a) The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the BABY DOPPLER trademark.
b) The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the BABY DOPPLER trademark.
The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the BABY DOPPLER trademark. ...
2020-12-30 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has provided substantial evidence of rights in the trademark CARVANA, including by registration at the USPTO, and through use in commerce. ...The Panel determines that the disputed domain names are each confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark within the meaning of the Policy.
The Panel determines that Complainant has established rights in the trademark CARVANA and that the disputed domain names are each confusingly similar to that trademark.
...
2020-11-23 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is a manufacturer and provider of infant food and dietary products for infants. ...D2000-0662, 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’.”)
...
2019-05-16 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfactorily proven that it has registered trademark rights for ABSA BANK.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. See Ansell Healthcare Products Inc. v. Australian Therapeutics Supplies Pty, Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2019-08-16 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the CITCO trademark.
The disputed domain name is clearly confusingly similar to the CITCO mark in which the Complainant has shown that it has extensive earlier rights. ...
2020-06-29 - Case Details
Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its HEDGE INVEST trademark given that the word “int”, as it is reflected in the disputed domain name, is often used as a shorthand for “international” and that consequently Internet users would not attach any trademark significance to it. ...Further, according to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to submit a Response as it considers appropriate.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the HEDGE INVEST trademark in which Complainant has rights.
...
2020-06-25 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its trademark BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM and the associated domain names, including “www.boehringer-ingelheim.com”. ...The Panel has therefore decided that the language of the proceeding shall be English and shall proceed with a decision in English.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under the first element of the Policy, a complainant must prove that a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights (paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).
...
2020-01-09 - Case Details
Complainant
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademarks. ...Considering the above the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks, therefore, the Complainant has established its case under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2021-02-10 - Case Details
Complainant
1. The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights
The Disputed Domain Names are almost identical and/or confusingly similar to (a) the Complainant's domain name and (b) the Complainant's trade name and trademark AMANRESORTS.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove (a) that it has rights in a trademark or service mark, and (b) that each of the Disputed Domain Names is identical to or confusingly similar to such trademark or service mark.
...
2004-05-28 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The dispute domain name is identical to the trademark NǛVIPHONE which has been applied for by the Complainant but not yet registered. ...However, in the Panel’s view, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the word “Nüvi” which is the Complainant’s registered trademark. The word “phone” when added to the Complainant’s registered trademark is confusingly similar to the trademarked word. ...
2008-05-15 - Case Details
The Panel is satisfied that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the GENTING mark. Previous panels have recognized that incorporating a trademark in its entirety can be sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark. ...It is generally regarded as prima facie evidence, for a complainant to show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its mark, 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. ...
2009-03-19 - Case Details
In the alternative, the Complaint argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade marks since that addition of “ag” and / or “.com” does not prevent a domain name from being confusingly similar to the basic trade mark to which those terms are appended.
...With that finding, it is no longer necessary to examine whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s other trade mark, or to examine the Complainant’s claim to unregistered rights arising through use of its company name.
...
2007-10-17 - Case Details