In particular, the Complainant asserts that:
(1) the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its 42 trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
The disputed domain name contains the trademark 42 in its entirety. ...Moreover, the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP
Questions, Third Edition (“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.
...
2023-04-17 - Case Details
This observation notwithstanding, the crucial issue is the evidence on the record that the disputed domain name is “confusingly similar” to Complainant’s trademark, which is furthermore a widely known and world famous mark. ...There is ample evidence of Respondent’s bad faith. Respondent has registered and used a confusingly similar domain name to Complainant’s mark to divert Internet users to Complainant’s competitors. ...
2011-03-01 - Case Details
It has been consistently held in numerous UDRP decisions that domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark “when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name”, see Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...Therefore, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademarks, in which the Complainant has rights and the Complainant has satisfied the first requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2011-04-15 - Case Details
Having considered the Complaint and the available evidence, the Panel finds the following:
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry – a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trade mark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trade mark.
...The Panel finds that, in overall resemblance, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark and so finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first limb of the Policy.
...
2011-06-17 - Case Details
It is well established that a domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark when the domain name includes the entire mark, even if one or more generic terms are added. ...D2008-1931 (February 6, 2009) ( confusingly similar to AAA marks for automotive services); see also The American Automobile Association Inc. v. ...
2011-04-08 - Case Details
The Respondent registered a domain name that is identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ZYNGA trademark and the Respondent has no legitimate interest in the Domain Name, demonstrating that the Respondent is a cybersquatter preventing the Complainant from commercially exploiting its mark on the Internet.
...In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. ...
2011-04-06 - Case Details
D2010-1821 (finding that, among other disputed domain names, , was confusingly similar to the FULL TILT POKER mark); Pocket Kings Limited v. Blue Giant Holdings Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2010-2059 (where, among other disputed domain names, and f8lltiltpoker.net>, were found to be confusingly similar to the FULL TILT POKER mark); and Pocket Kings Limited v. M Morgan,
WIPO Case No. D2010-2090 (holding that, among other disputed domain names, , was confusingly similar to the FULL TILT POKER mark.).
...
2011-09-02 - Case Details
To satisfy the test, the trade mark to which the domain name is said to be confusingly similar would generally need to be recognizable as such within the domain name. The addition of common, dictionary, descriptive, or negative terms are usually regarded as insufficient to prevent Internet user confusion. ...The impression created by the Domain Name may well give rise to the possibility that Internet users would think that the owner of the Domain Name is in fact the owner of the Complainant’s mark to which it is similar, or that there is some form of association between the Respondent and the Complainant.
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy and thus this element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been established
B. ...
2012-07-12 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent contends that the disputed domain name is not confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark as her website contains no content related to dairy products or services. ...Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the burden of proof with regard to these elements lies with Complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This question raises two issues: (1) does Complainant have rights in a trademark or service mark; and (2) is the disputed domain name identical or confusingly similar to such trademark or service mark.
...
2012-11-02 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established that it has rights to the trademarks SODEXHO and SODEXO by submitting copies of: Peruvian Trademark Registration No. ...The Domain Name, which consists of the words: “sodexo”, “beneficios” and the gTLD suffix “.com,” is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. The word “sodexo,” which is the dominant component of the Domain Name, is identical to the trademark SODEXO and confusingly similar to the SODEXHO. ...
2012-10-24 - Case Details
Complainant
5.1 The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which it holds rights for the following reasons:
(i) The addition of a random number does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. ...Spiral Matrix/ Kentech, Inc.,/Titan Net / NOLDC, Inc,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0808.)
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.7 Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, a complainant must prove that a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights.
6.8 In line with such provision, the Complainant must prove two limbs, i.e., it enjoys the trademark right; and the Domain Name is identical with or confusingly similar to its trademark or service mark. ...
2010-09-28 - Case Details
Upon considering the above, the Panel decides to render the Complainant’s request and rules that English be the language of the proceedings.
B. 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 has shown that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2010-09-02 - Case Details
Spiral Matrix and Domain Purchase, NOLDC, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0890. )
B. 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.
...
2010-06-28 - Case Details
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark
JODISEARCH.COM because it incorporates the entirely of “jodisearch”. ...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. ...
2023-12-08 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel has no doubt that “atacadao” is a term directly connected with the Complainant’s trademark.
...It is also already well established that the addition of a ccTLD such as “.io” is typically irrelevant when
determining whether a domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark.
As a result, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademark, and that the Complainant has satisfied the first element of the Policy.
...
2023-07-28 - 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 LEGO trademark.
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.
...
2023-08-18 - Case Details
As for the addition of the word “sale”, previous panels have held consistently that domain names are
identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark for the purposes of the Policy “when the domain name
includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain
name” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
registered trade mark and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2023-06-08 - Case Details
It makes the following observations concerning the differences of each of the disputed domain names to the DRAIN DOCTOR mark:
- is identical;
- is confusingly similar because of the addition of an “s”;
- contains “doc” which is an abbreviation of “doctor” and this domain name is therefore confusingly similar;
- is confusingly similar due to the sole addition of the geographical name “Dublin”;
- is confusingly similar due to the sole addition of the geographical name “Dublin” and also the addition of an “s”;
- is confusingly similar due to the sole addition of the definite article.
...As a consequence, the Panel finds that this disputed domain name is also confusingly similar to the Complainant’s DRAIN DOCTOR mark.
Accordingly, the Complaint succeeds under the first element of the Policy.
...
2018-11-09 - Case Details
The STATOIL trademark is undisputedly considered a well‑known trademark within its field of business and enjoys wide protection.
The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark
The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark as it consists of the trademark STATOIL. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the STATOIL trademark for the purposes of the Policy and thus paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been established.
...
2018-07-17 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant says it owns various registered trademarks containing the word “Link” including the LINK FINANCIAL SERVICES trademark. ...The Panel does not therefore consider it necessary to consider the Complainant’s further case as to unregistered trademark rights (though this would not be an obstacle given the use and figures noted in the Factual Background).
The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the LINK FINANCIAL SERVICES trademark. 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, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2021-01-07 - Case Details