The Panel finds the Respondent intentionally registered and is using the disputed domain names - which are
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks - in bad faith for the reasons set forth below.
...Also, the Respondent registered the
disputed domain names which are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark on the same day on
which the Complainant and DSM jointly announced their future merger. ...
2022-11-04 - Case Details
A complainant must prove each of these three
elements to succeed.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations for the BIOMERIEUX trademark. ...However, given the addition of the
letter “s”, the Domain Name and mark cannot be said to be identical, but the Domain Name is certainly
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BIOMERIEUX trademark.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the BIOMERIEUX trademark for the purposes of
the Policy and thus paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been established.
...
2023-01-09 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy provides that “[a domain-name holder] is required to submit to a mandatory
administrative proceeding in the event that [a complainant] asserts to the applicable [administrative-dispute-
resolution service provider], in compliance with the Rules of Procedure, that (i) [the Disputed Domain Name]
is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights[.]”.
...For the above reasons, the Panel finds that all of the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s trademark, and the condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...
2022-07-19 - 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. ...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Complainant contends that because Respondent has created a domain name that is identical, therefore confusingly similar to Complainant’s DISHOOM Mark, as well as the domain name Complainant uses to operate its Official DISHOOM Website , it is implausible to believe that Respondent was not aware of Complainant’s mark when it registered its confusingly similar disputed domain name. ...
2021-10-26 - Case Details
Complainant argues that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its SNAP-ON mark because “the term ‘SOCKS’ is descriptive within the context of Complainant’s offerings.”
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has provided sufficient evidence that it is the owner of a valid United States Registration for, and makes substantial use of, the SNAP-ON trademark. ...
2013-05-27 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark NATWEST, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the disputed domain name and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...For all the above cited reasons, the Panel concludes that disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark in which the Complainant has rights, and therefore the condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is fulfilled.
...
2012-11-16 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold inquiry: a threshold investigation into whether a
complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar to that 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...
2023-12-05 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends the following.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's
SCREENING EAGLE trademark.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-01-19 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold inquiry: a threshold investigation into whether a
complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
7. Decision...
2024-09-13 - Case Details
The Respondent could only have chosen a domain name confusingly similar to the UNILEVER name and mark in order to create an unfair commercial advantage for itself;
c. ...Hence, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainants' UNILEVER trade mark.
The Panel accordingly finds for the Complainants in relation to the first element.
...
2009-02-16 - Case Details
The Complainants submit that all of the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the NEWS CORPORATION mark and variations of it; and that the WSJ Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the WALL STREET JOURNAL mark.
...Similarly, the Panel is satisfied that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the mark NEWS CORPORATION.
By contrast, the Panel is not satisfied that the other two Domain Names in this Complaint, and , are confusingly similar to the marks NEWS CORP or NEWS CORPORATION. ...
2008-05-02 - Case Details
Confusing Similarity
Complainant further contends that the Disputed Domain Names are identical with and confusingly similar to the SUREPAYROLL Marks pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). Complainant argues that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar, because they wholly incorporate the principal element of SUREPAYROLL with the exception of common typographical errors and with the required extension of “.com.” ...Respondent has not contested the assertions by Complaint that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the SUREPAYROLL Marks.
As numerous courts and prior UDRP panels have recognized, the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered mark. ...
2007-06-28 - Case Details
ii. Complainant argues that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the FIFTH THIRD and 53 Marks, pursuant to Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, because it wholly incorporates the 53 Mark with the addition of a non-descriptive hyphen.
...Respondent has not contested the assertions by Complaint that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the FIFTH THIRD and 53 Marks.
As numerous courts and prior UDRP panels have recognized, the incorporation
of a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a domain name
is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered mark.
...
2006-12-20 - Case Details
A. Domain Names Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided evidence of ownership of the registered trademark MEDIASET.
...II Confusingly similar
The Panel finds that the disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark owned by the Complainant. ...
2009-03-17 - Case Details
Many UDRP panels have found that a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s
trademark for purposes of the first element, where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed
domain name. ...Many UDRP panels have found that a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark for purposes of the first element, where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. ...
2023-07-18 - 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 identical or confusingly similar to its
CARREFOUR and CARREFOUR MARKET trademarks, which are incorporated in their entirety in the
disputed domain name. ...page 4
The above three elements will each be discussed in further detail below.
B. 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.
...
2023-07-07 - 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 identical or confusingly similar to its
trademarks since it incorporates the AMERICAN AIRLINES mark in its entirety, changing the mark only by
adding a letter “b” in “airlines” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. ...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.
...
2023-11-03 - Case Details
Complainant
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the
Complainant has rights.
The Complainant makes the following assertions.
...Complainant
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant makes the following assertions.
6. ...
2024-12-26 - Case Details
D2000-0022 ( and confusingly similar to CHRISTIAN DIOR); Toyota Motor Sales USA v. Rafi Hamid dba ABC Automobile Buyer,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0032 ( and confusingly similar to LEXUS).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights, in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...
2019-06-05 - Case Details
See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.2.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires a complainant to establish first, that it has rights in a trade mark or service mark, and secondly, that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trade mark or service mark.
...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 the complainant’s trademark, that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and that the 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. ...
2020-05-12 - Case Details