Thus, it contends the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark and that Respondent is engaging in typosquatting.
Complainant has been using one or more WAL-MART marks since 1962. ...There is a commercial activity on Respondent’s
site which appears to be confusingly similar and competitive with the Complainant’s
activities, thus intentionally diverting consumers from Complainant’s
site. ...
2005-09-20 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first issue in this matter is whether the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. ...Domain
names that delete simple words or modifiers (such as the definite article “the”)
from a registered mark are considered to be confusingly similar. (See Playboy
Enterprises International, Inc. v. Hector Rodriguez, WIPO
Case No. D2000-1016, confusingly similar to the
mark THE PLAYBOY CHANNEL; and see Royal Bank of Canada v. ...
2006-09-11 - Case Details
The Complainant maintains that it is well-settled that the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar and refers to two UDRP Decisions in that regard. The Complainant goes on to argue that the additional terms in a domain name should not affect a finding that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This question raises two issues:
(1) Does the Complainant have rights in a trade mark or service mark; and
(2) Is the Disputed Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to such trade mark or service mark.
...
2006-03-16 - Case Details
On August 25, 1999, Respondent registered the domain name , which is identical to, or confusingly similar to the Mark. Further, the Mark is automatically associated with the image of the Icon. ...Identical or confusing similarity
It is prima facie obvious that the Domain Name is virtually identical to the Complainant’s ENERGIZER BUNNY word mark and, therefore, that they are confusingly similar. I am not convinced that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Energizer Bunny device mark. ...
2000-12-14 - Case Details
D2001-0661
in which was found confusingly similar to the "aol"
trademark, WIPO Case No. D2000-0102 in
which was found confusingly similar to "nokia"
and Red Bull GmbH v. ...D2002-0068 in which was found confusingly
similar to "redbull".
The domain name is thus found to be confusingly similar to the trademark ABB in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2003-06-13 - Case Details
Complainant
Not surprisingly, Complainant contends that Respondent is a "typo-squatter" who has registered a confusingly similar variation of its RBC CENTURA mark, , to attract Internet users who carelessly omit the second "c" from . ...Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.1 Although the requirement that a Complainant show that the Respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which it has rights as expressed as a single element, it is really two. ...
2003-06-18 - Case Details
For the Complainant to succeed in this element, it must also show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel find that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to both the Complainant’s registered and common law trademarks. ...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks and accordingly, the first element has been satisfied.
...
2011-02-28 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant makes the following assertions.
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the
Complainant has rights.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks owned by the Complainant because it is
comprised of the Complainant’s VALERO mark in its entirety, plus the abbreviation “ng” for the geographical
region of Nigeria, along with the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), “.com”.
...In the present case, the Panel must decide whether the Complainant has introduced elements of proof, which
allow the Panel to conclude that its allegations are true.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well established in previous UDRP decisions that, where the disputed domain name incorporates a
complainant’s registered trademark, this may be sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name is identical
or confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2022-11-18 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainants’ SPIKEVAX Mark
in which Complainants possess valid trademark rights under the UDRP. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-11-14 - Case Details
Previous WIPO 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 trade mark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...In other words, Respondent has through the use of a confusingly similar domain name and webpage contents created a likelihood of confusion with the LESPORTSAC Mark. ...
2012-11-19 - Case Details
[A screen print of the home page of Respondent's web site as of October 19, 2009 was attached to the Complaint.]
The Domain Name is Confusingly Similar to Costco's Registered Trademarks
Respondent's Domain Name is confusingly similar to Costco's COSTCO trademarks. ...There is no doubt, in the Panel's, opinion that is confusingly similar to COSTCO in the present circumstances.
The Panel therefore finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to an earlier trademark in which the Complainants have rights, and the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are met.
...
2010-01-15 - Case Details
A copy of the said decision has been attached as Annex 11 to the Complaint
The Complainant argues that disputed domain name is identical/confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark PAISABAZAAR, as it uses a virtually identical/deceptively similar term “Paisabazar”. ...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. ...
2020-09-28 - Case Details
Complainant states that the relevant inquiry under Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) concerns whether the Domain
Name is confusingly similar to the OANDA mark. Complainant contends that incorporating a complainant's
registered trademark into a disputed domain name is sufficient without anything more to establish that the
domain name is 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...
2022-08-04 - Case Details
As the Respondent did not file a Response or otherwise reply to the Complainant's contentions, the Panel shall decide the Complaint on the basis of the Complainant's submissions and such inferences that can be reasonably drawn from the failure to submit a Response as the Panel considers applicable (Rules, paragraph 14(b)).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complaint submits that the disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the names and trademarks in which the Complainant has extensive rights. ...Whether a domain name which incorporates a complainant's trademark together with a prefix or suffix is confusingly similar to the trade mark has been considered in a great number of UDRP decisions. It has been held that a domain name consisting of the complainant's trademark and ending with the “.com” gTLD is confusingly similar to the complainant's trademark (see Sanofi-Aventis v. ...
2010-08-06 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant makes the following assertions:
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s VAN CLEEF & ARPELS marks, because it fully incorporates the VAN CLEEF & ARPELS marks, but contains a typographical error in “vanclef,” omits the non-essential element (the ampersand), and adds the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
...In the present case, the Panel must decide whether the Complainant has introduced elements of proof, which allow the Panel to conclude that its allegations are true.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well established in previous UDRP decisions that, where the domain name incorporates a complainant’s registered trademark, this may be sufficient to establish that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2014-01-17 - Case Details
This requirement asks whether the Respondents domain is identical or confusingly similar to the marks of the Complainant.
The Complainant makes no claim as to identity between the domain name and its marks, but rather asserts that the domain name in issue is confusingly similar to the DIGITAL CITY marks. ...The presence of other SLDs using the "digitalcity" expression does not, as an empirical matter, say much about whether "digitalcitymap.com" is confusingly similar. All of the other SLDs might be confusingly similar also – though of course I am making no conclusions about these marks, since they are not in issue in this matter. ...
2000-11-14 - Case Details
Respondent has not contested the assertions by Complaint that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the GODADDY Marks.
As prior United States courts and Panels have recognized, the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s registered mark. ...Therefore, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the GODDADY Marks pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
Rights or Legitimate Interest.
...
2007-10-12 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied in the present case, as follows:
(a) 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 confusingly similar to the Trademarks, since it reproduces the word element “intesa sanpaolo” used in the Trademarks in its entirety, with the mere inversion of letters “a” and “o” in the second verbal element. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is required to establish the two following elements: (1) that it has trademark rights, and, if so, (2) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark(s).
...
2016-10-03 - Case Details
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
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