A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark and, second, is the Disputed Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. ...D2004-0117 (a domain name incorporating a well-known trademark combined with a geographically descriptive term is confusingly similar to the trademark); Inter-IKEA Systems B.V. v. Hoon Huh,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0438 (the addition of the term “korea” in does not prevent the domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark).
...
2019-06-18 - Case Details
Complainant
The following is summarized from the Complaint:
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark because it fully incorporates it. Also, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar because it consists of the Complainant’s mark, with the inclusion of the generic words “pen,” which the Complainant is in the business of selling, and “sale”. ...Given these similarities, the Panel has adopted similar reasoning and argument in this case.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There is no dispute that the Complainant has registered rights in relation to MONTBLANC, including in China where the Respondent has its listed address. ...
2013-07-24 - Case Details
For these reasons, Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
(i) Identical or confusingly similar
Respondent states the Domain Name is notidentical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel must first determine whether the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. ...
2016-05-18 - Case Details
With Complainant’s rights in the CALIFORNIASCIENCENTER Mark established, the remaining question
under the first element of the Policy is whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar
to Complainant’s CALIFORNIASCIENCENTER Mark. A side-by-side comparison between the disputed
domain name and Complainant’s mark shows the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s CALIFORNIASCIENCENTER Mark.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-11-25 - Case Details
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trade marks in which the Complainant has rights. The Domain Name incorporates the ROTHSCHILD trade mark in its entirety. ...A complainant must prove each of these three elements to succeed.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant and its affiliated entities are the registered owners of the Rothschild Trade Marks. ...
2022-02-09 - Case Details
A domain name containing such a misspelling is therefore a confusingly
similar domain name. The Complainant also submits that in assessing whether a disputed domain name is
confusingly similar to a trade mark the gTLD is disregarded. ...The Panel is of the opinion
that applying these principles to this case, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trade mark.
Therefore, the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is met.
...
2023-03-24 - Case Details
In particular, the Complainant asserts that:
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
- The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark, TEAVANA, in light of the fact that it is virtually identical to the Complainant’s mark.
...The Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the available evidence submitted by the Complainant and from the absence of a response as it considers appropriate.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element, the Complainant must have trademark rights and the disputed domain name must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
...
2019-10-08 - Case Details
Respondent
- The disputed domain name, , is not confusingly similar to the Complainant’s APPLE trademark.
- For eight years, the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name to display or advertise goods or services that are similar to those of the Complainant...D2006-0517 (finding that , among other disputed domain names, was confusingly similar to the mark AMAZON, while stating that “[t]he disputed domain names differ from the Complainant’s mark only by the change of a single letter...a practice known as ‘typosquatting’...Given the foregoing, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names and the Complainant’s mark, when directly compared, are confusingly similar.”); and Red Bull GmbH. v. ...
2011-01-07 - Case Details
The Respondent has failed to file a formal response in these proceedings and is therefore in default and the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the available evidence.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element, the Complainant must have trademark rights and the disputed domain name must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
...In light of the foregoing, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2012-10-03 - Case Details
AAIM,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0403.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy Complainant must establish rights in a trademark and secondly prove that the domain name in dispute is confusingly similar to the trademark in which Complainant has rights.
...Numerous UDRP panels have held that a domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark when the domain name incorporates the mark in its entirety. See, e.g., Am. ...
2007-10-12 - Case Details
Opinion of the Panel
1. Is the domain name identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which
Complainant has rights?
Each of the domain names is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered
trademark and domain name. ...Internet Hosting, NAF Case No. 124516
( and found
confusingly similar to THE SPORTS AUTHORITY); Bayer Akiengesellschaft v.
Yongho Ko, WIPO Case No. D2001-0205
(April 6, 2001) ( found confusingly similar to
BAYER); Pfizer, Inc. v. ...
2004-02-10 - Case Details
i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the
Complainant has rights.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the COUPONCABIN
Trademarks. ...The above three elements will each be discussed in further detail below.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is required to establish: (1) that it owns rights in a trademark or service mark, and, if so, (2)
that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademarks.
...
2022-07-18 - Case Details
The Panel finds that this disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant Rural has rights.
The disputed domain names and contain the whole word component of the Complainant Sandhurst’s registered composite trademark SANDHURSTTRUSTEES, and add only a gTLD. The Panel finds that these disputed domain names are confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant Sandhurst has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is not a licensee of, or otherwise affiliated with, the Complainants, and has not been authorized by the Complainants to use their trademarks. ...
2014-04-25 - Case Details
It is generally regarded as prima facie evidence of no rights or legitimate interests if a complainant shows that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark, that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and that a complainant has not authorized the respondent to use its mark (or an expression which is confusingly similar to its mark), whether in the disputed domain name or otherwise. ...Based on this evidence, the Panel finds that it is implausible to believe that Respondent was not aware of the SANOFI Mark when it registered its confusingly similar disputed domain name. Such registration of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s widely-known trademark suggest opportunistic bad faith. ...
2020-09-18 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark RAPID SHARE.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, because it replicates the first and dominant element of the trademark. ...
2010-09-14 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided sufficient evidence showing that it is the owner of the XENICAL marks. ...Indeed, there are numerous decisions holding a domain name to be confusingly similar to a registered trademark when it consists of the mark plus one or more generic terms”, (finding confusingly similar to WAL-MART). ...
2013-07-04 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established facts that it has acquired rights under the designation
94.7THEWAVE. ...The Panel, therefore, considers the domain name in question to be confusingly similar to the service mark 94.7THEWAVE of the Complainant in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2004-07-01 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not
reply to Complainant’s contentions in this proceeding.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This Panel must first determine whether the Subject Domain Names are “identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights” in accordance with Paragraph (4)(a)(i) of the Policy. ...This Panel therefore finds that this domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
In summary, this Panel finds that each of the Subject Domain Names is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights in accordance with Paragraph (4)(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2005-11-11 - Case Details
D2001-0918
(September 14, 2001) (domain name not confusingly similar
to NETSCAPE trademark); Lockheed Martin Corporation v. Dan Parisi, WIPO
Case No. D2000-1015 (January 26, 2001) (domain name
not confusingly similar to trademark). ...D2003-0417 (July 22, 2003)
the Respondent’s website at a confusingly similar domain name “contain[ed]
a number of hyperlinks to websites offering inter alia travel services”.
...
2007-05-16 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(a) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the domain names and are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark MASTERCARD.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights in the MASTERCARD trademark, by virtue of U.S. ...
2007-10-31 - Case Details