A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In order for Complainant to succeed under the Policy, the disputed domain name must be identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights. ...The addition of the element “com” does not prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to TRUSTMARK Mark.
The mere addition of the term “com”, to the mark, does not change the overall impression of the disputed domain name as being a domain name connected to the mark. ...
2013-11-13 - Case Details
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.
...Numerous other .nl panels have found that a domain name consisting of a misspelled trademark is in principle confusingly similar to that mark (see, e.g., Coöperatieve Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B.A. (Rabobank Nederland) v. ...
2012-11-27 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant does have trademark rights in the mark DEATH ROW RECORDS by virtue of United Kingdom Trademark Registration No. ...The Panel is prepared to find that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark rights when it registered a confusingly similar domain name, and when it began operating a website in connection with that confusingly similar domain name which offered unauthorized, unreleased music recordings for the purpose of monetary gain. ...
2010-12-20 - Case Details
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.
...The top level domain “.nl” may be disregarded for purposes of article 2.1(a) of the Regulations.
The Domain Name is also confusingly similar to the trade name SRC.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SRC trademark and trade name.
...
2013-10-22 - Case Details
It has long been held that the addition of a common word to a trademark in a domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark. SGS Société Générale de Surveillance SA v. Inspectorate Korea,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0025 (addition of the English word “group” to trademark SGS in the domain name is confusingly similar to the SGS mark). In fact, the addition of the same English word “store” along with the letters “us” to the mark OLYMPIC was found to be confusingly similar to the OLYMPIC trademark. ...
2013-08-19 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.
...“tv”). In such a case, the domain name may well be confusingly similar, but not identical to the Complainant's trademark.
In the case at hand, the Panel is of the opinion that the disputed domain name is indeed confusingly similar to the SAMSUNG trademark of the Complainant.
...
2008-11-13 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To satisfy this element, Complainant must establish it has rights to a trade or service mark, and that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to such mark. ...The Panel further finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s Marks. Complainant has thus satisfied its burden of proof under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2006-10-09 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant alleges that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, and argues, with references to a number of prior WIPO Panel decisions, that the domain name at issue merely adds a non-distinctive word to the HARRODS trademark and is, consequently, to be considered as confusingly similar.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In the Panel’s opinion, the addition of the word “discount” to the name of a famous department store is, in this context, non-distinctive and trivial. ...
2006-11-15 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
i. Domain Name Identical or Confusingly Similar to Complainant’s Mark
Complainant contends that the Domain Name is practically identical with and confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks, corporate name and domain name. ...A. The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights
Complainant has established that it holds rights in its mark DELONG and uses
its mark for sportswear. ...
2006-04-20 - Case Details
- Complainant further contends that Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s.
- According to Complainant, Respondent has not used the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. ...Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has produced copies of some of its "Pokemon" trademark registrations in the United States, for example, U.S. ...
2000-11-03 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark REMY COINTREAU. The substitution of the letter "o" by the number "0" in the word "Cointreau" is not sufficient to exclude the likelihood of confusion existing since they look very similar. ...For these reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is not called "Remy", "Cointreau" or anything similar. ...
2017-10-13 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
As set forth above, Complainant has shown that it has rights in the DYNABRADE mark. It owns over twenty trademark registrations, including three US federal registrations. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the DYNABRADE mark and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2014-04-01 - Case Details
The disputed domain name, Complainant alleges, is deliberately “confusingly similar” to Complainant’s registered marks. Specifically, Complainant alleges, with evidence, that Respondent’s website provides links to competing companies providing similar services in direct competition with Complainant (Annexes J and Q). ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name, while not identical to Complainant’s marks, is clearly sufficiently similar to meet the Complainant’s burden of proof. ...
2007-04-12 - Case Details
The domain name registered by Respondent, is confusingly similar to its TRAVELEX trademarks.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the contested domain name, .
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established that it owns prior rights in the TRAVELEX trademark and the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark.
...
2010-07-16 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that: 1. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights, contrary to Policy, (paragraph 4(a)(i)) and Rules (paragraphs 3(b)(viii), (b)(ix)(1)); 2. ...The Panel holds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s PETPLAN trademark.
The disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark with the addition of the letter “o” to the term “petplan”. ...
2020-07-09 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark and, if so, the Domain Name must be shown to be identical or confusingly similar to the Trademark.
...Thus, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademark.
For all the foregoing reasons, the Panel is satisfied that the first element of the Policy is met.
...
2019-10-15 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the M88 Marks for the purposes of the Policy and thus paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been established.
...It is unlikely any offering by the Respondent using Domain Names confusingly similar to the M88 Marks could be regarded as bona fide, particularly given that such offering is similar or identical to that of the proprietors of the M88 Marks. ...
2017-05-29 - Case Details
The Panel shall therefore proceed to examine whether the Complainant has discharged the burden of proof in respect of each of the aforementioned three elements and decides as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Panel to consider whether the Complainant has rights in a trade mark or service mark to which the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar. ...The top-level suffix ".com" is generally disregarded in assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark (as it is a technical requirement of registration).
The first element of the Policy is essentially a "low threshold", standing requirement and so the Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's TPRESSO trade mark for the purpose of this test. ...
2015-09-30 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is required to establish the two following elements: (1) that it has trademark rights, and, if so, (2) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark(s).
...Previous UDRP panels have established that a domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark when it incorporates a well known mark in its entirety. (America Online, Inc v. ...
2015-11-20 - Case Details
According to the evidence provided by the Complainant the disputed domain name redirects to a website that offers similar services to the Complainant’s services.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
a) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Respondent disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant trademark CHATURBATE. ...The domain names that are based on misspelling of trademarks are often deemed to be confusingly similar (Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft v. New York TV Tickets, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2001-1314).
...
2018-01-26 - Case Details