page 4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-07-26 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer
of the disputed domain names.
page 3
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names and the BIONTECH trademark are confusingly
similar.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-09-06 - 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...
2024-10-09 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...It is an accepted principle that generic Top-Level Domains (“gTLDs”), in this case “.com”, are to be typically
disregarded in the consideration of the issue of whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to
a Complainant’s trademarks. Disregarding the gTLD “.com”, the Panel notes that the disputed domain
names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
...
2024-08-15 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a
trademark for purposes of the Policy when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar
approximation. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-08-30 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name and the
CARREFOUR trademarks are confusingly similar.
...Complainant
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-05-17 - 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. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-04-07 - Case Details
It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, where appropriate, will decide consistent with the consensus views captured therein.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy it should be established that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the complainant has rights.
...It is well established that seeking to profit from the sale of a confusingly similar domain name that incorporates a third party’s trademark demonstrates bad faith. See Luigi Lavazza S.p.A. v. ...
2021-09-28 - Case Details
In the instant proceeding, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WINTRUST mark as the disputed domain name fully incorporates the WINTRUST mark. ...Prinn Sukriket,
WIPO Case No. D2011-0439.
That Respondent chose to use a confusingly similar domain name to promote Respondent’s real estate services is not a legitimate or bona fide use. ...
2021-04-23 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark because it incorporates in its entirety the trademark AMBIEN.
...
2020-10-15 - Case Details
The Complainant currently uses its SPINRAZA trademark in sixteen countries in connection with its pharmaceutical product.
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights
The Domain Name is nearly identical to, confusingly similar and incorporates the entirety of the Complainant’s SPINRAZA trademark. ...The only issue therefore is whether the addition of the letters “hcp”, renders the Domain Name something other than confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SPINRAZA trademark. The Panel finds that it does not and hence also finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SPINRAZA trademark for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2018-05-23 - Case Details
The Complainant further contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark, as it comprises the word "electrolux", which is identical to the trademark, and the addition of the generic and descriptive Vietnamese words "maygiat" (which means "washing machine" in English) does not materially change the confusingly similar conclusion.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...
2017-08-04 - Case Details
D2000-1589 (December 21, 2000)
(finding domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s
TF1 and TF1.COM marks); ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. v. Mark Sheppard,
WIPO Case No. ...The Complainant has Rights in a Trade or Service Mark, with which Respondent’s Domain Name is Identical or Confusingly Similar
There are two requirements that a complainant must establish under this paragraph; that it has rights in a trade or service mark, and that the domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the marks.
...
2005-07-12 - Case Details
D2004-0750 (November 8, 2004).
(c) The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the CIALIS Mark
The addition of a descriptive word to Complainant’s CIALIS trademark
does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CIALIS trademark or service mark and that Complainant has superior rights in such mark(s) to Respondent.
...
2005-08-11 - Case Details
Texas International Property Associates,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0592 ( domain name confusingly similar to AAA marks for maps); American Automobile Association, Inc. v. Nevis Domains LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0489, ( domain name confusingly similar to AAA marks for automotive services); see also The American Automobile Association, Inc. v. ...
2009-04-09 - Case Details
The Complainant claims in addition certain trade mark rights, which it says are relevant to the Complaint and claims that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to those trade marks. Finally, on this topic, the Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's domain name, . ...In the result, it is not difficult to conclude that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to it and the Panel so finds.2
For the purposes of this decision, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Community Trade Mark No. 3,575,867 in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2009-02-11 - Case Details
D2006-0052 (finding the domain name confusingly similar to the trademark XENICAL); and MAACO Enterprises, Inc. v. IP Admin / DNAV ASSOCS,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0009 (finding the domain name confusingly similar to the trademark MAACO). With respect to those of the Disputed Domain Names that contain a generic term,3 the Panel agrees with a prior decision involving the same Complainant as in this case, in which the panel there found the domain names , and confusingly similar to the TOEFL Trademark. ...
2008-09-26 - Case Details
Complainant
In its Complaint, Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to its MOVADO trademark and, in fact, incorporate Complainant’s MOVADO mark in its entirety. ...For these reasons, the Panel concludes that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the MOVADO mark, a distinctive and well-known trademark in which Complainant has rights.
...
2008-08-01 - Case Details
Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered trademarks CAMPHO-PHENIQUE because it is an abbreviated version of the trademarks. ...AAIM,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0403.
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 disputed domain name is identical to or confusingly similar to the trademark in which Complainant has rights.
...
2011-05-26 - Case Details
D2001-0778, October 1, 2001, (where was found confusingly similar to the PLAYBOY mark); Adaptive Molecular Technologies, Inc. v. Piscilla Woodward S Charles R Thorton, d/b/a Machines & More,
WIPO Case No. ...D2000-0429 (June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar).
Complainant has not authorized, licensed or consented to Respondent's registration and use of any domain name incorporating the THOMAS SABO trademark, or any confusingly similar variation of Complainant's marks. ...
2010-01-25 - Case Details