Complainant further contends that the other disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its PEPSI mark since it wholly incorporates the PEPSI mark.
Complainant also alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and goes so far as to contend in essence that its mark is so well established that there can be no legitimate interest in a domain name confusingly similar to its mark, citing among other authority the panel decision in Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondée en 1772 v. ...Michael Robertson,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0009).
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Although the disputed domain names are not identical to Complainant’s PEPSI trademark, the Panel agrees with Complainant that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar.
...
2011-03-01 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SWAROVSKI trademark, a distinctive and well known mark in which the Complainant has established rights through registration and extensive use all over the world.
...There is no doubt that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first element of the Policy.
...
2014-05-21 - 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, therefore, finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
EQUINOR mark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which
the Complainant has rights, meaning that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph
4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2023-09-14 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant submits sufficient evidences for its registered trademarks in the UK. ...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 trademark. Disregarding the gTLD “.com”, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name
is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
...
2023-09-04 - Case Details
“Domain names which constitute typo-squatting are confusingly similar by definition; it is this similarity which makes them attractive.” See Dell Computer Corporation v. ...Privateer Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0455 (“addvil.com” held confusingly similar to ADVIL).
For the foregoing reasons, the Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
...
2020-04-23 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(i) Identical or confusingly similar.
Complainants have submitted evidence of ownership of trademarks and trademark registrations for its NOO related trademarks. ...Further, the Panel determines that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainants NOO marks, as the Domain Name incorporates the term “noo” in its entirety. ...
2021-02-19 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...The result is that the Complainant has shown that the above disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant had shown that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2010-03-02 - Case Details
XC2,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0444 (finding confusingly similar to the ESPNEWS trademark); Marriott Int’l, Inc. v. Seocho, NAF Case No. FA 0303000149187 (Nat’l Arb. ...The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainants have rights, within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2007-08-13 - Case Details
Other prior Panels have
consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a
famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith.
...Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
B. Respondent
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-02-07 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under Policy paragraph 4(a)(i), the Complainant must demonstrate: (a) it has rights in the Mark; and (b) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Mark. ...D2008-1302 (“expresscripts.com” held confusingly similar to EXPRESS SCRIPTS).
Panels, under the UDRP, have consistently found the use of terms that are a slight variation from a registered mark to be “confusingly similar” and/or “virtually identical” to that mark. ...
2012-04-13 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ROTHSCHILD Trademarks for the following reasons:
(a) In relation to the disputed domain name
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is a combination of the name ROTHSCHILD, which is identical to the ROTHSCHILD Trademark, and the word “banks”, which describes banking services, one of the principal services provided by the Complainant. ...Thirdly, the Complainant has adduced evidence and proved that by using confusingly similar disputed domain names, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s websites. ...
2006-11-24 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar to a Mark in which Complainant has Rights
The Complainant does not have any registered trademark. Therefore, it can only satisfy the first requirement by establishing that it has common law rights in a mark to which the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar.
It is not suggested that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to “Chelsea and Westminster Hospital”; the Complainant relies solely on its use of the abbreviated name “Chelwest”.
...
2007-11-30 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Name incorporates the entirety of the Complainant’s trademarks (HOSTELWORLD.COM and HOSTELWORLD). ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the owner of the HOSTELWORLD.COM and HOSTELWORLD trademarks as evidenced by its trademark registrations. ...
2021-09-23 - Case Details
c) Finally, the Complainant contends that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark RADIO MARIA and its domain not only because they sound similar but also because MARIE is the French equivalent of the name MARIA. ...The replacement of the word “maria” with “marie” does not substantially distinguish it from the trademark since not only do they sound similar, but Marie is the French equivalent of the name Maria.
Given these facts, the Panel finds the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks.
...
2010-07-07 - Case Details
A complainant must prove each of these three elements.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name incorporates the Complainant's trademark in its entirety but adds the word “my” immediately before it. ...However, it is difficult to accept that promotion of a website to which a confusingly similar domain name resolves and which has as its key offering similar (competing) products (jewelery) to that offered by the trade mark owner (using its trade mark for such purpose), could be a bona fide offering of goods or services.
...
2009-09-25 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant owns registered trademarks for the name ADECCO in a number of countries: Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland and the United States to give some examples. ...Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is at least confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark rights.”
For the same reasons, the Panel concludes here that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark.
...
2008-04-03 - Case Details
Respondent also asserts that the Domain Name and
alleged trademark are not confusingly similar because "sucks" is recognized
as a distinguishing, pejorative term that would not be confused with the trademark
owner.
...It seems that five different rationales have been expressed for finding that
the domain name with the "sucks" suffix were confusingly similar to
the complainant’s mark. The first of these approaches is simply to find that
a domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark "when the domain name
includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of
the other terms in the domain name". ...
2003-10-24 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To satisfy the first UDRP element, the disputed domain name must be identical or confusingly similar to a trademark, in which the Complainant has rights. ...The WhoIs information contains no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the COX trademark, which was registered long before the registration of the disputed domain name. ...
2015-05-12 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
5.A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
5.A.1 By reference to the facts summarised in paragraphs 4.A.2 to 4.A.4 above, Complainant asserts that it has rights in the SWAROVSKI mark.
5.A.2 Complainant further asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its SAWROVSKI mark on the following grounds. ...That is, the Policy expressly recognizes that other circumstances can be evidence relevant the requirements of paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and (iii) of the Policy.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.5 On the basis of paragraphs 4.A.2 to 4.A.4 above, clearly Complainant has rights in the SWAROVSKI marks.
6.6 Further, the disputed domain name is, equally clearly, confusingly similar to Complainant’s SWAROVSKI trade mark. ...
2014-09-18 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that registration of a disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to its trademark is “sufficient evidence” of bad faith when the Respondent has no relationship to the Complainant. ...The suffixing of a gTLD signifier can be ignored when determining whether the disputed domain name is “identical or confusingly similar” to the trademark for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) (Universal City Studios Inc. v. ...
2015-06-05 - Case Details