Name Privacy, supra).
There is no doubt that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademarks of the Complainant. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first element of the Policy.
...Only someone who was familiar with the Complainant's marks would have registered such a confusingly similar Domain Name (see Aventis, Aventis Pharma SA. v. John Smith,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0850; AT&T Corp. v. ...
2009-05-20 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
Both parties present arguments which are summarized in essential detail below.
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar to a Trade Mark or Service Mark in which the Complainant has Rights
The Complainant argues that Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark for CANTERA DOORS.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar to a Trademark or Service Mark in which the Complainant has Rights
The Panel follows abundant panel precedents and accepted principles of trade mark law in deciding that is confusingly similar to the trademark CANTERA DOORS.
...
2005-05-26 - Case Details
The Disputed Domain Name was registered on November 8, 2006.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Confusingly Similar
Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s XENICAL mark and incorporates the mark in its entirety. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights, through
registration and use, in the mark XENICAL. ...
2007-03-28 - Case Details
Policy, paragraph 4(a).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based upon the registrations cited by Complainant, the Panel is convinced that Complainant has rights in the mark STAR SYSTEMS.
...D2005-0256 (finding the
domain name confusingly similar to the trademark PFIZER).
Therefore, Complainant has proven that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STAR SYSTEMS mark, and Complainant has proven the first of the three elements required by the Policy.
...
2006-04-04 - Case Details
Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s FIFTH THIRD mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.
3. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established rights in the FIFTH THIRD mark through commercial use since 1968, and registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). ...
2006-04-04 - 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 inquiry – namely, 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.
...
2014-08-14 - Case Details
The registration of a confusingly similar domain name despite such actual or constructive knowledge, without more, evidences bad faith registration within the meaning of the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii).
...These elements are discussed in turn below.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There is no dispute that the Complainant has registered rights in relation to MONTBLANC, including on the principal register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. ...
2013-07-19 - Case Details
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The inclusion of the entire LEGO trademark within the disputed domain name militates strongly against Respondent. ...The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LEGO trademark and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy have been satisfied.
...
2013-09-30 - 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 the Complainant has rights in the 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 name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trade Mark. The Complainant submits evidence of screenshots of the web page(s) corresponding with the disputed domain name. ...
2013-09-26 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant has established trademark rights in LA-Z-BOY as evidenced by the trademark registrations submitted with the Complaint, as mentioned above.
...Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, a domain name is confusingly similar to a mark where the domain name fully incorporates the mark and simply adds a generic or geographically descriptive term that does not negate the confusing similarity. ...
2012-11-12 - Case Details
Where, as here, a Respondent is in default, the Panel may draw such inferences as it considers appropriate. Policy, paragraph 14(b).
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel agrees that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered trademark VALET WASTE, as it contains Complainant’s registered mark in its entirety, and is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered trademark VALET WASTE, INC, because the designation “INC.” adds no distinctiveness to Complainant’s trademark and therefore the disputed domain name incorporates the distinctive portion of this mark in its entirety. Adding the letters “ww” before “valetwaste” fails to distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s trademark for purposes of determining whether they are identical or confusingly similar. Edmunds.com Inc. v. Wan-Fu China, Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0339 (finding the domain name confusingly similar to EDMUND’S), Sanofi-Aventis v. ...
2010-10-26 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks CASINO DE MONTE-CARLO and CASINO DE MONACO. ...The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark CASINO DE MONACO.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2010-07-20 - Case Details
Therefore,
the Panel finds the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
service mark. (See Tcketmaster Corporation v. Dmitri Prem, ICANN/WIPO
Case No. ...D2000-0028, March 10, 2000 where the domain name
was found confusingly similar to the mark Cellular One; and General Electric
Company v. Pars International Computer, Inc., ICANN/WIPO
Case No. ...
2001-09-21 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant claims that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark ALTA VISTA as required by paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...i) Identical or confusingly similar
The Administrative Panel accepts the Complainant's submission that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark ALTA VISTA. ...
2002-12-13 - Case Details
A. The Domain Name is Confusingly Similar to Complainant’s Mark
Complainant has shown that it has common law rights in the SERMO trademark. ...D2007-0769 (for purposes of the first prong of the Policy, is confusingly similar to CHUBB trademark); Societé Air France v. Virtual Dates, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0168 ( is confusingly similar to AIR FRANCE trademark); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2008-07-09 - 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
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
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 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