D2005-0652 (observing 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 confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name”).
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy have been satisfied.
...
2012-01-26 - 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
The Complainant has submitted detailed evidence that it is the owner of registered trademarks consisting of the word "marlboro".
...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. ...
2014-12-24 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has submitted detailed evidence that it is the owner of numerous trade marks consisting of the words "wal-mart" and "walmart".
...Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark 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. ...
2014-12-23 - 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
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
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
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
1. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant owns the two U.S. trademark registrations referenced above for online retail sales of watches: WORLD OF WATCHES and WORLDOFWATCHES.COM, which issued in 2000 and 2001. ...In the Panel’s view, whether or not the domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks presents a somewhat close question. Contrary to Complainant’s assertion, the domain name does not incorporate the entirety of Complainant’s marks. ...
2012-03-21 - 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
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
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
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
These elements are discussed as set forth below
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Numerous ICANN UDRP decisions 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. ...The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name, , which incorporates Complainant’s VW and R32 trademarks in their entirety, is confusingly similar to those trademarks. When a domain name contains two registered trademarks, such as here, that domain name is deemed confusingly similar to the trademarks at issue. ...
2013-06-24 - 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
In the circumstances, Complainant says that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its BMW trade mark.
5.A.1.2 In this connection, Complainant cites Decisions under the Policy where disputed domain names incorporating the BMW mark and a descriptive word ; ; ; and < desertbmw.com> were all found to be confusingly similar to the BMW trade mark.
5.A.1.3 Additionally, Complainant cites decisions under the Policy where the combination of the word "world" with a trade mark has been held to be confusingly similar to that mark. ...That is, the Policy expressly recognizes that other circumstances can be evidence relevant the requirements of paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and (iii) of the Policy.
6.5 Identical or Confusingly Similar
On the basis of the facts summarised in paragraph 4.A and the submissions and supporting cases summarised in paragraph 5.A.1 above, it is clear that Complainant has rights in the famous BMW trade mark and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to that mark. ...
2015-04-22 - Case Details
According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark, as "kamasa" is a distinctive word making both visually and aurally confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark KAMASA-TOOLS. ...American Consumers First et al.,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0742 (using confusingly similar domain names to redirect web users away from a complainant's website is evidence of bad faith); see also Trustmark National Bank v. ...
2015-04-22 - Case Details