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
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
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
Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name , is confusingly similar to the CHEVRON
trademark. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-11-30 - Case Details
Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s JUSTGIVING
trademark as it “consists of the whole” of the JUSTGIVING mark.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
7. Decision...
2022-11-25 - Case Details
Further, the disputed domain name adopted by the Respondent is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
registered rights. The Respondent is trying to take advantage of the THE KNOWLEDGE ACADEMY
trademark to draw traffic to the website, which shows a clear intention of misleading the Internet users.
...The disputed domain name is, indeed, confusingly similar to the THE KNOWLEDGE ACADEMY trademark.
It clearly shows the Complainant’s mark with inversion of the letters “e” and “a”, which can be seen as an
example of typosquatting.
...
2023-01-06 - Case Details
Complainant
The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The
disputed domain names incorporate the entirety of the Complainant’s famous trademark. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-06-08 - Case Details
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 3
The Complainants’ registered and well-known mark is wholly contained within the Domain Name as its first
element with only the addition of the term “nft”. ...Preliminary Issue – Consolidation – Multiple Complainants
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-07-05 - Case Details
page 3
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is, indeed, confusingly similar to the QLIK and QLIKVIEW trademarks, as they
are entirely incorporated 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...
2022-04-01 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant owns trademark registrations for its BEIN trademark in numerous
jurisdictions.
...The gTLD “.best” is disregarded when considering whether the respective disputed domain name is
confusingly similar to the earlier trademarks.
For these reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s mark BEIN.
...
2022-11-15 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The trademarks put forward by the Complainant demonstrate that the Complainant has rights in LIDL.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-09-26 - Case Details
Instead it results in a domain name that is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark”.)
The Complainant has established this first element 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...
2022-12-28 - Case Details
The addition of the generic Top-Level-Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to the disputed domain name is irrelevant to the confusingly similar analysis.
Respondent is neither affiliated with, nor has it been licensed or permitted to use Complainant’s FACEBOOK mark. ...Panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a widely known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4).
...
2022-01-11 - 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
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The evidence presented in the Complaint demonstrates that the Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations for BNP PARIBAS in different jurisdictions as well as the domain name .
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark BNP PARIBAS. The intentional misspelling between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.
...
2021-08-31 - 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
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
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
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