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
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
So, in order to decide whether the three
Domain Names are confusingly similar to the trademark AMBIEN, the Panel considered
the remaining parts of the Domain Names. ...These two letters sound in a very similar way in the combinations “ambien” and “ambian,” especially in the English language. Therefore, the Panel finds that the part “ambian” in the discussed Domain Names is confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant. ...
2006-03-13 - Case Details
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 trade mark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...In other words, Respondent has, through the use of a confusingly similar domain name and webpage contents, created a likelihood of confusion with the SWAROVSKI Marks. ...
2012-11-26 - Case Details
Respondent also asserts that the Domain Name and
alleged trademark are not confusingly similar because "sucks" is recognized
as a distinguishing, pejorative term that would not be confused with the trademark
owner.
...It seems that five different rationales have been expressed for finding that
the domain name with the "sucks" suffix were confusingly similar to
the complainant’s mark. The first of these approaches is simply to find that
a domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark "when the domain name
includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of
the other terms in the domain name". ...
2003-10-24 - Case Details
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. ...The Panel, therefore, finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
EQUINOR mark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which
the Complainant has rights, meaning that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph
4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2023-09-14 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant submits sufficient evidences for its registered trademarks in the UK. ...It is an accepted principle that generic Top-Level-Domains (“gTLDs”), in this case “.com”, are to be typically
disregarded in the consideration of the issue of whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to
a Complainant’s trademark. Disregarding the gTLD “.com”, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name
is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
...
2023-09-04 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(i) Identical or confusingly similar.
Complainants have submitted evidence of ownership of trademarks and trademark registrations for its NOO related trademarks. ...Further, the Panel determines that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainants NOO marks, as the Domain Name incorporates the term “noo” in its entirety. ...
2021-02-19 - Case Details
“Domain names which constitute typo-squatting are confusingly similar by definition; it is this similarity which makes them attractive.” See Dell Computer Corporation v. ...Privateer Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0455 (“addvil.com” held confusingly similar to ADVIL).
For the foregoing reasons, the Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
...
2020-04-23 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the M88 Marks for the purposes of the Policy and thus paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been established.
...It is unlikely any offering by the Respondent using Domain Names confusingly similar to the M88 Marks could be regarded as bona fide, particularly given that such offering is similar or identical to that of the proprietors of the M88 Marks. ...
2017-05-29 - Case Details
According to the evidence provided by the Complainant the disputed domain name redirects to a website that offers similar services to the Complainant’s services.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
a) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Respondent disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant trademark CHATURBATE. ...The domain names that are based on misspelling of trademarks are often deemed to be confusingly similar (Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft v. New York TV Tickets, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2001-1314).
...
2018-01-26 - Case Details
XC2,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0444 (finding confusingly similar to the ESPNEWS trademark); Marriott Int’l, Inc. v. Seocho, NAF Case No. FA 0303000149187 (Nat’l Arb. ...The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainants have rights, within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2007-08-13 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SWAROVSKI trademark, a distinctive and well known mark in which the Complainant has established rights through registration and extensive use all over the world.
...There is no doubt that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first element of the Policy.
...
2014-05-21 - Case Details
The Panel shall therefore proceed to examine whether the Complainant has discharged the burden of proof in respect of each of the aforementioned three elements and decides as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Panel to consider whether the Complainant has rights in a trade mark or service mark to which the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar. ...The top-level suffix ".com" is generally disregarded in assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark (as it is a technical requirement of registration).
The first element of the Policy is essentially a "low threshold", standing requirement and so the Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's TPRESSO trade mark for the purpose of this test. ...
2015-09-30 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is required to establish the two following elements: (1) that it has trademark rights, and, if so, (2) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark(s).
...Previous UDRP panels have established that a domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark when it incorporates a well known mark in its entirety. (America Online, Inc v. ...
2015-11-20 - Case Details
Complainant further contends that the other disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its PEPSI mark since it wholly incorporates the PEPSI mark.
Complainant also alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and goes so far as to contend in essence that its mark is so well established that there can be no legitimate interest in a domain name confusingly similar to its mark, citing among other authority the panel decision in Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondée en 1772 v. ...Michael Robertson,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0009).
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Although the disputed domain names are not identical to Complainant’s PEPSI trademark, the Panel agrees with Complainant that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar.
...
2011-03-01 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...The result is that the Complainant has shown that the above disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant had shown that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2010-03-02 - Case Details
Taking the aforementioned provisions into consideration, the Panel finds as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Panel to consider first whether the Complainant has established relevant trade mark rights. ...The Panel therefore finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark.
The Complainant has therefore satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2018-11-02 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant makes the following submissions.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. The mere addition of one letter does not negate the confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the Trade Mark.
...The onus of proving these elements is on the Complainant even though the Respondent failed to reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
A. 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.
...
2019-07-09 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element that the Complainant must establish is that the disputed domain name is identical with, or
confusingly similar to, the Complainant’s trademark rights.
...The Complainant also contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its claimed rights in
CUSTOM PRODUCT PACKAGING and SUSTAINABLE PACKAGING as unregistered trademarks.
...
2026-07-27 - Case Details