However, as noted above, the Panel has determined that it is appropriate to draw adverse inferences from Respondent’s default.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant must first establish that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
...Given that the dominant portion of the Domain Name is “hilltop”, and that the other portions of the Domain Name do not distinguish the Domain Name from the HILLTOP Mark, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the HILLTOP Mark for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
(iv) Conclusion: Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the Complainant’s Marks, and that the Domain Name is identical to the HILLTOP MALL Mark and is confusingly similar to the HILLTOP Mark. ...
2006-03-21 - Case Details
For the foregoing reasons, the Panel considers that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered trademark property of the Complainant, being both the Complainant's mark and the registered domain name by the Respondent, phonetically and visually confusingly similar, once the specific top level is taken away. ...Nor it entitles the Respondent to be vested with any rights to register a confusingly similar expression of the Complainant's mark as a domain name.
This issue has been addressed by other Administrative Panels, where the fact of a party having various domain names bearing a trademark are not sufficient reason for preventing it from being able to register a confusingly similar variation of the mark. ...
2004-05-13 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel must determine whether the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
...Here, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, because the Domain Name differs from the mark by omitting only the “s” at the end of the word “service” (i.e., moving from the plural to singular case).
...
2017-05-11 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the TERADATA trademark.
The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the TERADATA trademark. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...
2022-02-18 - Case Details
Moreover, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark for the
purposes of the Policy. In particular, the Domain Name adds the word “my” to the acronym “pba”, which
itself is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PBGC 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...
2024-02-14 - Case Details
Respondent asserts that the Domain Name is not confusingly similar to the Marks because at the time of registration of the Domain Name, Complainant had not yet registered a trademark for an EAMOBILEGAMES mark. ...Respondent asserts that the Domain Name is not confusingly similar to the Marks because at the time of registration of the Domain Name, Complainant had not yet registered a trademark for EAMOBILEGAMES Mark. ...
2006-08-28 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant makes the following assertions:
i. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the SWAROVSKI Marks. ...It is also recognized that where the misspelling of a domain name is phonetically similar to the trademark then the domain name is considered to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark. ...
2012-03-06 - Case Details
Complainant
The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s Trademarks
Complainant argues that it is a well-known subsidiary bank of SNS Bank, and that it is the largest sustainability-driven bank in the Netherlands.
...Considering these conditions, the Panel rules as follows.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There are two requirements that a complainant must establish under the first criterion in this case, namely i) that it has rights in a trademark or trade name, and ii) that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to such trademark or trade name. ...
2015-12-14 - Case Details
In accordance with article 10.3 of the Regulations, the Complaint shall in that event be granted, unless the Panel considers it to be without basis in law or in fact.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to article 2.1(a) of the Regulations, Complainant must establish that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
...Many decisions under the Regulations have found that a domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark where the domain name incorporates the trademark in its entirety. ...
2016-06-16 - Case Details
Complainant is furthermore convinced that Respondent intentionally created a domain name confusingly similar to its trademark with in the attempt of attracting Internet traffic to its website, which spreads malware. ...Thus, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark MARLBORO and the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) are fulfilled.
...
2017-05-23 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant submits that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its PICTET trademark as it wholly incorporates the highly recognizable PICTET trademark in its entirety. ...Many decisions under the Regulations have found that a domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark where the domain name incorporates the trademark in its entirety. ...
2017-05-17 - Case Details
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it has registered trade mark rights in respect of AL ARABIYA. ...Thus the comparison is between "alarabyia" and AL ARABIYA. Plainly the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark and the Panel so finds.
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has produced evidence to establish that the Domain Name, a confusingly similar variant of the Complainant's registered trade mark, is being used to divert Internet users to the Complainant's operational website at "www.alarabiya.net". ...
2017-11-13 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Mark because the disputed domain name is composed of the Mark preceded by “www”. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark.
...
2021-04-08 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its BLANTON and BLANTON’s marks. Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name consists of the of the word “blanton” followed by the word “bourbon.” ...
2021-09-29 - Case Details
The Panel is satisfied that the Domain Name is subject to the control of Respondent and will therefore proceed to analyze whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied in this proceeding.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant must establish rights in a trademark and secondly that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
...Many UDRP decisions have found that a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark where the disputed domain name incorporates the complainant’s trademark in its entirety.
...
2011-10-17 - Case Details
The Panel is satisfied that the registrant of record for the Domain Name is Respondent and will therefore proceed to analyze whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied by Complainant in this proceeding.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant must establish rights in a trademark and secondly that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
...Many UDRP decisions have found that a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark where the disputed domain name incorporates the complainant’s trademark in its entirety. ...
2012-02-23 - Case Details
In accordance with article 10.3 of the Regulations, the Complaint shall in that event be granted, unless the Panel considers it to be without basis in law or in fact.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to article 2.1(a) of the Regulations, Complainant must establish that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or trade name in which Complainant has rights.
...In light of the foregoing, the Panel need not examine whether the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trade name OHRA. In any event, the record before the Panel contains insufficient, relevant proof that Complainant is the actual owner of the trade name OHRA. ...
2012-05-09 - Case Details
Based on article 2.1 of the Regulations, a request to transfer a domain name must meet three cumulative conditions:
a. The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or trade name protected under Dutch law in which the complainant has rights, or other name by means of article 2.1(a) under II of the Regulations; and
b. ...Considering these conditions, the Panel rules as follows.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided evidence that it is the proprietor of the Trademark. The Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to this Trademark. ...
2013-09-12 - Case Details
The Panel is satisfied that the registrant of record for the Domain Name is Respondent and will therefore proceed to analyze whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied by Complainant in this proceeding.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant must first of all establish rights in a trademark or service mark and secondly that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
...Many UDRP decisions have found that a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark where the disputed domain name incorporates the complainant’s trademark in its entirety. ...
2012-09-13 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant submits that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the KPN trademark as it contains the KPN trademark in its entirety. In the Dutch language the word “glasvezel” means “fibre optic”. ...Many UDRP decisions have found that a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark where the disputed domain name incorporates the complainant’s trademark in its entirety. ...
2012-05-31 - Case Details