FA0007000095105, wherein it was found that respondent’s registration of "lllbean.com" was in bad faith and confusingly similar to the complainant’s L.L. BEAN trademark.
In International Data Group, Inc. v. Maruyama & Co., Ltd., WIPO Case No. ...Farrukh Zia, WIPO Case No. D2000-0167 ("enike.com" and "e-nike.com" confusingly similar to NIKE trademark).
The Panel further finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name "eebay.com". ...
2000-12-20 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
The Complainant asserts:
- The Respondent's domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's ICQ marks.
- The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name...The second requirement of this paragraph is that the domain name in issue is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks. On this issue, the Complainant asserts that the domain name is confusingly similar to its marks. ...
2000-11-15 - Case Details
According to Complainant, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademark. The Domain Name and the Trademark are confusingly similar, as the text component of the Trademark is fully incorporated in the Domain Name. The signs are conceptually, visually and aurally similar. The Domain Name was solely chosen to create a confusingly similar domain name to the Trademark and the various domain names held by Complainant.
...
2021-01-05 - Case Details
I will not harm you in any way”.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain names and , are both identical to the Complainant’s well-known trademark GRUNDFOS, other than the addition of the descriptive term “pumpseals” and “seals” in the disputed domain names.
...It is well established in UDRP jurisprudence that the addition of the “.com” suffix does not, in itself, detract from the confusingly similar nature of the domain name.
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the disputed domain names and are identical in material respects and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
...
2013-01-28 - Case Details
Complainant
The domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
mark ALTAVISTA as required by paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name is clearly confusingly similar to the
trademark ALTAVISTA in which the Complainant has rights in many countries, among
which the Russian Federation. ...
2003-01-06 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark, THE SPORTSMAN’S GUIDE, and its domain name .
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is named Asia Ventures, Inc. ...
2003-02-04 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark, THE SPORTSMAN’S GUIDE and its domain name .
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is named Lorna Kang. ...
2003-02-03 - Case Details
The Complainant first considers that the registration of domain names that are confusingly similar to a widely
known ELIZABETH ARDEN trademark, as is the case here, creates a presumption of bad faith. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-06-09 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has properly asserted its rights in the STARBUCKS Trademark due to the long use and
number of registrations globally.
...It is also well established that the gTLD, in this case “.com”, does not affect the Disputed Domain Name for
the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar.
Pursuant to section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety
of a trademark, the domain name will normally be considered identical or confusingly similar to that mark for
purposes of UDRP standing.
...
2023-03-17 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, there are two requirements which the Complainant must establish, first
that it has rights in a trademark or service mark, and second that the disputed domain name is identical or
confusingly similar to the trademark or service 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...
2023-03-03 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name is “identical or
confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights”.
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which
Complainant has rights, and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2023-08-03 - Case Details
In all the
circumstances, the Panel determines that English be the language of the proceeding.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established that it has rights to the Trade Mark. ...Procedural History
4. Factual Background
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established that it has rights to the Trade Mark. ...
2023-08-16 - Case Details
In light of the above, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s TYSON, and that the Complainant has established the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the
Policy.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-11-27 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has properly asserted its rights in the SAP Trademark due to the long use and number of
registrations worldwide. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-10-02 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant has to show that the Domain Name is
identical or confusingly similar with the Trade Marks, in which it has rights.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-10-19 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant has to show that the Domain Name is
identical or confusingly similar with the Trade Marks, in which it has rights.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-10-19 - Case Details
For all the foregoing reasons, the Panel holds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s INTCOMEX trademark within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of 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...
2023-09-28 - 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 PINSENT MASONS mark in its entirety. ...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.
...
2023-06-22 - Case Details
A complainant must prove each of
these three elements to succeed.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the owner of the LIDL trademark and thus clearly has rights for the purposes of the
Policy.
...The addition of the term and the hyphen “-shop” does not prevent a finding of confusing
similarity.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the LIDL trademark for the purposes of the
Policy and thus paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been established.
...
2022-11-30 - Case Details
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...
2025-01-28 - Case Details