The
Panel finds that the addition of a term “crypto” in the present case does not prevent finding the disputed
domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
Considering the above the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademark, therefore, the Complainant has established its case under paragraph 4(a)(i) of 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...
2023-06-21 - Case Details
Moreover, the Respondent’s registration of the
Domain Name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark, which
is widely known and has been used in commerce for more than 53 years, is further
evidence of bad faith. ...The Panel notes that the Respondent has failed to respond to the Complainant within the stipulated time and, as such, does not contest the facts asserted by the Complainant in the Complaint.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name at issue, ,
is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's “TIAA-CREF”
marks registered in the United States and used in international commerce in
connection with the Complainant’s financial services of various kinds
for many years. ...
2006-02-06 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been met and the Domain Name should be transferred.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The sign "houshiboss" is confusingly similar to the Complainant's HUGO BOSS trade mark. ...Taken on its own the elements, "houshi" and "hugo" would not be considered similar, however the comparison of the Domain Name and trade mark as a whole especially given the independent distinctive significance of the element BOSS, renders the Domain Name to be confusingly similar to the HUGO BOSS trade mark as well. ...
2016-01-18 - Case Details
In the Panel’s view, both of the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered ITUNES trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has used the disputed domain names in order to redirect Internet traffic to a commercial gambling website. ...In this case, the Respondent has acquired and used domain names that are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark in order to redirect Internet traffic to a gambling website, apparently deriving an income thereby. ...
2011-10-06 - Case Details
In addition, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the BIOMERIEUX trademark as it fully incorporates the latter, being the only difference the additional "x" at the end.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Names , , , , , and are confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark BIOMERIEUX. ...
2018-10-12 - Case Details
However, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s lack of a response.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.
...Where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trade mark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark (see section 1.7 of WIPO Overview 3.0). The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.
...
2020-04-24 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its NO NONSENSE trademarks because it reproduces identically and entirely the NO NONSENSE mark. ...Despite assertions by Respondent that the disputed domain name and content thereon are not similar to Complainant’s NO NONSENSE mark, the Panel has found that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to this mark. ...
2020-07-03 - Case Details
I will not harm you in any way”.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain names and , are both identical to the Complainant’s well-known trademark GRUNDFOS, other than the addition of the descriptive term “pumpseals” and “seals” in the disputed domain names.
...It is well established in UDRP jurisprudence that the addition of the “.com” suffix does not, in itself, detract from the confusingly similar nature of the domain name.
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the disputed domain names and are identical in material respects and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
...
2013-01-28 - Case Details
According to Complainant, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademark. The Domain Name and the Trademark are confusingly similar, as the text component of the Trademark is fully incorporated in the Domain Name. The signs are conceptually, visually and aurally similar. The Domain Name was solely chosen to create a confusingly similar domain name to the Trademark and the various domain names held by Complainant.
...
2021-01-05 - Case Details
Complainant
The domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
mark ALTAVISTA as required by paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name is clearly confusingly similar to the
trademark ALTAVISTA in which the Complainant has rights in many countries, among
which the Russian Federation. ...
2003-01-06 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark, THE SPORTSMAN’S GUIDE, and its domain name .
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is named Asia Ventures, Inc. ...
2003-02-04 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark, THE SPORTSMAN’S GUIDE and its domain name .
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is named Lorna Kang. ...
2003-02-03 - Case Details
Respondent
The Complainant’s claim that the disputed domain name, and by inference the term “ABC Store”, is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark ABC SHOP, is disputed. The words “store” and “shop” are dictionary words that have similar meanings but the Respondent disputes that they are confusingly similar. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the ABC SHOP trademark.
...
2021-04-06 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or confusingly similar:
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its CARREFOUR and BANQUE CARREFOUR well-known trademarks because it imitates them.
...D2012-2001).
Besides the disputed domain name is also confusingly similar to the well-known CARREFOUR trademark.
As indicated above, the removing of the letter “r” is almost unnoticeable.
...
2019-06-21 - Case Details
International Electronic Communications Inc., WIPO
Case No. D2000-0270.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar
to Complainant’s AMAZON mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the
Policy. ...D2005-1131 ( confusingly similar to GEICO)....
2006-07-11 - Case Details
Complainant
The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s Trademarks
Complainant argues that it uses the Trademarks in connection to its real-time instant messaging software application “KIK Messenger”. ...Considering these conditions, the Panel rules as follows.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There are two requirements that a complainant must establish under the first criterion, namely i) that it has rights in a trademark or trade name, and ii) that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to such trademark or trade name. ...
2015-08-05 - Case Details
The Complainant argues that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The Domain Name incorporates the dominant part of the Complainant’s trademark and trade name. ...Several UDRP cases have recognized that incorporating the dominant part of a trademark can be sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark. The Domain Name is visually, phonetically and conceptually confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and trade name.
...
2017-11-30 - Case Details
The Panel finds that all three of these elements have been met in this case.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element requires the Panel to consider two issues: first, whether the Complainant has rights in a relevant mark; and, second, whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that mark. ...D2021-2612, in which the panel found confusing similarity when the disputed domain name swapped out the same letters in a similar way. UDRP panels have consistently held that “[a] domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element”. ...
2022-03-01 - Case Details
Complainant has proven all three elements.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is evident that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s well-known mark, ACCUTANE. Indeed, if it were not confusingly similar there would be no point in linking the disputed domain name to a website that purportedly sells ACCUTANE.
...
2013-05-14 - Case Details
For the above reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s trade mark and that the Complainant has therefore established the first element of paragraph
4(a) of 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...
2023-06-05 - Case Details