Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
Domain Name Identical or Confusingly Similar to Complainant's Mark
Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Mark in which Complainant has rights, because it incorporates the entirety of Complainant's Mark. ...Kieran McGarry,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0629 (finding confusingly similar to PEPSI).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's Mark.
...
2010-02-04 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that this small difference does not suffice to prevent the Domain Name from being found to be confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark and further argues that the Domain Name is an example of a typosquatting case.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is clear that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's widely-known trademark as it is identical to the Complainant's trademark with the juxtaposition of the “f” and “l”. ...
2008-08-26 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark GUIDESTONE in its entirety, in combination with the generic term “insurance”.
...The case is thus similar to the Chanel, Inc. v. Estco Technology Group,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0413 where the panel regarded “chanelstore” as being confusingly similar to the trademark CHANEL. ...
2008-04-22 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant states that it uses the trademark XENICAL to promote weight loss and weight control.
Complainant alleges that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its trademark XENICAL. Complainant asserts that the Domain Name incorporates its trademark in its entirety.
...The location of the registered trademark and the goods and/or services it is registered for are irrelevant when finding rights in a mark.”.1 The only remaining question, then, is whether the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel finds that Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark because the addition to the letters “la” to the Trademark XENICAL does not change the fact that the Domain Name looks and reads like Complainant’s XENINAL trademark.
...
2007-12-28 - Case Details
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The evidence presented by the Complainant demonstrates that Complainant’s trademark RECORD-EAGLE has been used extensively by Complainant for approximately 30 years. ...The Panel next looks to whether the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is, absent the hyphen, identical to Complainant’s trademark RECORD-EAGLE and is thus confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
...
2001-08-06 - Case Details
The Panel next looks to whether the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical to Complainant’s mark OKIDATA and is thus confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
The standard of confusingly similar has been reached and the requirement of Paragraph 4(a)(i) is met.
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests of the Respondent
Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. ...
2001-08-17 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant states that it and its subsidiaries own a number of trademark registrations throughout the world that consist of or feature the term YAMAHA. ...D2000-0437 (finding that disputed domain name
is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark IKEA); NIKE, Inc. v. Jaeik
Jung, WIPO Case No. D2000-1471 (finding
that disputed domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s trademark NIKE). ...
2004-04-21 - Case Details
Michael Robertson,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0009.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To satisfy the first UDRP element, a domain name must be “identical or confusingly similar” to a trademark, in which a complainant has rights. ...The Domain Name and the Domain Name are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ARCELORMITTAL trademark because the Complainant’s trademark is the distinctive and prominent element of the Domain Names. ...
2015-10-16 - Case Details
Furthermore, domain names consisting of a trade mark plus a negative term are considered confusingly similar to that trade mark.
The Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights in the mark STATOIL by virtue of its registered trade mark.
...
2021-05-25 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element requires the Complainant to establish the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark in which it has rights.
...D2015-1708 () for use of a phonetic similar variant of the mark in a domain name, and WhatsApp Inc. v. Burt Beuker,
WIPO Case No. D2020-2293 () where the WHATSAPP mark with the word “store” was found confusingly similar to the mark....
2021-06-30 - Case Details
Under the first element, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to
the Mark because it consists of a typosquatted variation of the Mark. The disputed domain name omits the
letter “a” from NAKED and adds “prime” after NUTRITION but, when viewed as a whole, the disputed domain
name is confusingly similar to the Mark, including because it has a highly similar sound, meaning and
commercial impression.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-10-01 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant must establish that it has a trademark or service mark and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark or service mark for the Complainant to succeed.
...Numerous UDRP panel 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. See, Aldermore Bank Plc v. Hildegard Gruener,
WIPO Case No. ...
2019-09-20 - Case Details
The Complainant further contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the DELOITTE trademarks. The distinctive part of the disputed domain comprises DELOITTE mis-spelt by having an extra “E” on the end, as “deloittee”. ...The dispute is properly within the scope of the Policy and the Panel has jurisdiction to decide the dispute.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is required to prove that it has rights in a trademark to which the disputed domain name is confusingly similar.
...
2008-12-19 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is nearly
identical, or if not identical, is confusingly similar to Complainants’
SALLY marks. ...Indeed, it is well-established that the addition of a geographic
designation to another’s trademark in a domain name does nothing to change
an otherwise identical or confusingly similar domain name. See Volvo Trademark
Holding AB v. SC-RAD Inc., WIPO Case No.
D2003-0601 (use of the “well-known trademark ‘VOLVO’ in
the registered domain name is sufficient, despite the addition of the geographic
term, to find the domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademark”); Harrods Limited v. ...
2006-05-31 - Case Details
Bill Keith, WIPO Case No. D 2000-0299.
Similar decisions were issued with respect to the disputed domain name ,
considered as confusingly similar (in spite of the addition of “al”,
considered insignificant) to the trademark “DODI FAYED”, filed by
the Complainant. ...The Panel finds that the domain name in dispute is confusingly similar to the Trademark DIDIER GUÉRIN bijoutier.
The first criterion has been met.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has not filed any response in this proceeding. ...
2007-05-14 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant makes the following submissions.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.
The Trade Mark has become recognized by consumers worldwide as designating the Complainant as the source of services provided under the Trade Mark. ...However, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s default.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.
...
2016-07-29 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. The Disputed Domain Name adds the Spanish word “tributario” to the Trade Mark, which in English means tax, and is commonly used in relation to financial services.
...However, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s default.
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.
...
2016-07-14 - Case Details
Therefore, the Domain Name could be considered virtually identical and/or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. ...D2001-0110, stating, “The incorporation of a Complainant’s well-known trademark in the registered Domain Name is considered sufficient to find the Domain Name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.”
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first requirement that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark, under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2015-10-28 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered CENTURYLINK trademark. The disputed domains either incorporate the CENTURYLINK trademark in its entirety, or differ by only one or two letters. ...The Panel further finds that the domain names , , and are confusingly similar with the Complainant’s registered CENTURYLINK trademarks. The disputed domain names contain minor changes compared to the Complainant’s trademark. ...
2017-03-23 - Case Details
This means that a deliberate misspelling of a trademark registered as a domain name, which is intended to confuse Internet users, must be confusingly similar by design. See RX America, L.L.C. v. Tony Rodolakis, supra (referring to intentional misspellings as "typosquatting", which "has consistently been regarded as creating domain names that are confusingly similar to the relevant mark"). ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered trademark.
...
2016-11-17 - Case Details