D2006-0979 (domain name confusingly similar to complainant’s SANDS mark); Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. Zaynel Demirtas,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0768 ( domain name confusingly similar to complainant’s mark).
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark in which the Complainant has rights, and that the Complainant has thus established the first element, pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2012-09-07 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant owns US Federal and State Trademark Registrations for SPORTSMAN’S WAREHOUSE and SPORTSMAN’S WAREHOUSE-related marks.
...Following previous UDRP panels, a domain name which contains a common or obvious misspelling of a trademark normally will be found to be confusingly similar to such trademark, where the misspelled trademark remains the dominant or principal component of the domain name (Humana Inc. v. ...
2012-08-21 - Case Details
However, in this case, Respondent’s use of the domain names to display websites identical or substantially and confusingly similar to Complainant’s website indicates to the Panel that Respondent viewed the disputed domain names to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark. ...In light of the above, the Panel finds that Respondent concedes that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to NATWEST, and the Panel accordingly finds that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been established.
...
2012-12-12 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant clearly has demonstrated that it has rights in the LIVING SPACES mark, with first use of September 11, 2003. ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered mark, and that Complainant meets the first criterion of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2010-12-20 - Case Details
This is the essence of bad faith under UDRP, i.e., using a confusingly similar domain name to direct web traffic to a site selling competing products to those of a complainant.
...Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is - well-settled UDRP practice that a domain name incorporating a trademark or service mark in its entirety may be identical or confusingly similar to that trademark or service mark for purposes of the Policy. ...
2010-09-27 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant’s contentions are set out fully below:
“A. The domain name[s] [is/are] identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(Policy, para. 4(a)(i), Rules, paras. 3(b)(viii), (b)(ix)(1).
...On balance therefore, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark. Respondent’s contention that the word Moshi is a common word meaning “hello” does not negative that similarity.
...
2010-08-23 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it owns rights in the MFORTUNE trademark. There are many UDRP decisions that find that the pairing of a distinctive trademark with less distinctive terms is confusingly similar to the distinctive trademark. ...D2001-0032 ( and confusingly similar to LEXUS). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name, which pairs the MFORTUNE trademark with the generic term “casino” is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MFORTUNE trademark. ...
2013-11-20 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A Complainant
The Complainant alleges, firstly, that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark under the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), Rules, paragraphs 3(b)(viii), (b)(ix)(1). ...Given the widely known mark of the Complainant, RBS, the Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name adds credence to the determination that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...
2013-03-15 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established its rights in the CETERA trademarks by virtue of its U.S. registrations. The Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to the registered marks, in that it incorporates the entirety of the distinctive word “cetera” as its first and dominant element. ...
2014-01-17 - Case Details
The Panel finds that all three of these elements have been met in this case.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-12-04 - Case Details
D2020-0566, the domain name was found to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
SODEXO trademark.
The Panel finds the Respondent’s disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s SODEXO mark, only differing by the transposition of the vowels “e” and “o”, which does not
prevent the mark from being recognizable in the disputed domain name. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-10-10 - Case Details
Establishing a website to
sell potentially counterfeit products, using a disputed domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
mark, is a clear example of bad faith registration and use under 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...
2024-05-20 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is therefore identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
2. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name.
3. ...To the contrary it is apparent from the evidence that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark PPG without the Complainant’s authorization or consent.
...
2018-08-08 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To satisfy paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
...Domains by Proxy / Ray A Board,
WIPO Case No. D2016-0840.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PHILIP MORRIS mark. It contains Complainant’s PHILIP MORRIS mark in its entirety. ...
2018-07-24 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark OSRAM. The intentional misspelling between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. ...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” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2019-03-11 - Case Details
That is shown by the fact that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark and is linked to a website that features unauthorized copies of content from Complainant’s copyrighted website.
...There is no reason to debate whether the disputed domain name, , is confusingly similar to Complainant’s VIRGIN ATLANTIC mark, which is used in connection with airways travel. ...
2019-07-25 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant makes the following contentions.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant first argues that the disputed domain name is highly confusingly similar to its trademark CREDIT MUTUEL in the extent that the disputed domain name reproduces the trademark in its entirety.
...The onus of proving these elements is on the Complainant.
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.
...
2019-08-28 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant does have registered trademark rights in MILIPOL and MP MILIPOL by virtue of the trademark registrations listed in paragraph 4 above.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, as the disputed domain name replicates the Complainant’s MILIPOL trademark, except for the addition of the geographical abbreviation QA (for Qatar). ...
2019-09-24 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds the Complainant does have registered rights in the trademark EUROPE 1.
...See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1.
The Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar domain name to facilitate a fraudulent financial scam is not a bona fide use of the disputed domain name under the Policy.
...
2020-10-14 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant argues that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered COMPUWARE Trademark, since the Top-Level Domain, such as ".net" or ".com", is not considered for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar, and since the Disputed Domain Name contains the Complainant's Trademark in its entirety, resulting in a domain name that is identical to the Complainant's Trademark. ...D2000-0429 (finding that the Top-Level Domain, such as ".net" or ".com", does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar).
This warrants a finding that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's COMPUWARE Trademark.
...
2018-01-04 - Case Details