Firstly, according to the Complainant, the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its Trademarks. The Domain Name fully incorporates the Complainant’s Trademarks with the addition of the generic term “supportnumber”. ...The Panel will deal with each of the requirements in turn.
A. Identical of Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the Domain Name is (i) identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, (ii) in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2022-02-28 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, there are two requirements which the complainant must establish, first that it has rights in a trademark or service mark, and second that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The mere addition of the misspelled dictionary word “group” is not sufficient to eliminate confusion.
...
2021-12-06 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its CALIBER HOME LOANS mark because the disputed domain name is the same except for the fact that it introduces a typographical error, in which the letter “m” is changed to “r” followed by “n.” ...D2021-2512 (finding the respondent’s replacement of the letter “i” with an “I” confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark BVLGARI).
In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. ...
2021-11-05 - Case Details
There is
no need to discuss in detail that using a confusingly similar domain name for redirecting visitors to a
competitor’s website constitutes bad faith under 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...
2023-01-10 - 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
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
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
Complainant
Complainant contends, in relevant part, as follows:
- The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the ROPES & GRAY Trademark because it “incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety with the only differences being the exclusion of the ampersand, the addition of the hyphen, and the addition of three letters (‘llp’), which conveys a type of business organization, to the end of the mark” and “[t]he addition of ‘llp’ to a mark has been found as confusingly similar in many cases...Policy, paragraph 4(a).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based upon the trademark registration cited by Complainant, it is apparent that Complainant has rights in and to the ROPES & GRAY Trademark.
...
2021-06-17 - 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
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 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
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark or service mark and, if so, the Domain Name must be shown to be identical or confusingly similar to that mark.
...D2005-0457), it does not generally affect the analysis under the first element of the Policy for the purpose of determining whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar; indeed, the TLD is a necessary technical component of a domain name.
Thus, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademark.
...
2021-04-29 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(i) Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant contends that the Domain Name is on its face confusingly similar to both Complainant’s domain name , and Complainant’s DEWBERRY service marks. ...iii) Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Complainant states that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its domain name, , and was registered by people who neither do business as Dewberry nor have Dewberry as part of their name. ...
2021-09-03 - Case Details
In accordance with article 10.3 of the Regulations, the Complaint shall in that event be granted, unless the Panel considers it to be without basis in law or in fact.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to article 2.1(a) of the Regulations, Complainant must establish that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or trade name in which Complainant has rights.
...Many decisions under the Regulations have found that a domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant's trademark where the domain name incorporates the trademark in its entirety. ...
2017-06-09 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or confusingly similar:
The Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's Trade Mark. ...The Panel considers that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark for the following reasons.
The addition of the descriptive abbreviation "fest" does not detract from the identical or confusingly similar nature of the Disputed Domain Name. ...
2017-09-20 - 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
Complainant
The Complainant contends as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark RED BULL. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark RED BULL. ...
2016-07-20 - 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