In light of these circumstances, the Panel concludes that it will (1) accept the Complaint in English; (2) accept the Response in Korean; and (3) issue a decision in English.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts; first, whether the Complainant has rights in a relevant trademark and, second, whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established registered rights in the mark OTOVENT and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety, and the addition of the gTLD extension “.com” may be disregarded when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark (Proactiva Medio Ambiente, S.A. v. ...
2019-04-12 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has established registered rights in its ELECTROLUX trademark. ...Finally, it is well-established that that the addition of the gTLD “.com” does not avoid a finding that a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark.
The Panel accordingly finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark ELECTROLUX, in which the Complainant has rights, and that the provisions of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy have been met.
...
2020-04-27 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant makes the following submissions.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Trade Mark in its entirety with the additional descriptive terms “intl” and “logistics”. ...Based on this evidence, the Panel is satisfied that the Disputed Domain Names are under common control and that it is procedurally efficient to consolidate to the proceedings.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.
...
2020-04-16 - Case Details
Also, I never tried to do anything bad idea.”
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel determines that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, and paragraphs 3(b)(viii) and (b)(ix)(1) of the Rules.
...The Panel holds further, that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark because it incorporates the Complainant’s WHATSAPP trademark, even if it adds the dictionary term “buy”. ...
2020-11-17 - Case Details
Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the CVS Trademark.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...Considering these requirements, the Panel rules as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel holds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. ...
2020-10-12 - Case Details
Complainants further contend that the Domain Names are identical with and confusingly similar to the SHERWIN-WILLIAMS Marks pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
Respondent has not contested the assertions by Complainants that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the SHERWIN-WILLIAMS Marks.
...Therefore, the Sole Panelist finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SHERWIN-WILLIAMS Marks pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
Rights or Legitimate Interest.
...
2001-02-22 - Case Details
The Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent's website by choosing a domain name (“the Domain Name”) and providing links to online services that are confusingly similar to the Complainant's. If the Respondent had legitimately established his business prior to learning about the Complainant's online domain, the Respondent would have selected a different name rather than choosing a name confusingly similar to a completely fictitious word like “mojofiti”.
...In this case, the Complainant has established that it has common law rights in a MOJOFITI mark, and that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to that mark. Clearly, the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use its mark (or any expression confusingly similar thereto), and there is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the Respondent (or any business or organization operated by him) might be commonly known by the Domain Name (and thus provide the Respondent with a right or legitimate interest under paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy). ...
2010-03-24 - 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 has shown that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2009-12-08 - Case Details
The inquiry here is confined to whether either of the Disputed Domain Names is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainants have rights. This is a narrow enquiry which cannot take account of the content of the Respondent's website nor the fact that the Complainants may use domain names with which the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar. ...At the very least such additional matter is not capable of preventing the Disputed Domain Names from being confusingly similar to the trademark which they embed.
Numerous panel decisions under the Policy have established that the addition of words or letters to a mark used in a domain name does not generally alter the fact that a domain name is confusingly similar to the mark. ...
2008-12-02 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant makes the following submissions and arguments:
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks containing the word DEX.
The disputed domain name is legally identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's DEX trademarks. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element, the Complainant must have rights in a name, trademark or service mark, and the disputed domain name must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's name, trademark or service mark.
...
2009-01-14 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established trademark rights relating to FENDI.
...Used in bad faith
Respondent’s domain name apparently diverts Internet users wishing to search Complainant’s marks to Respondent’s website which propose links to other websites offering the same or similar products to those of the Complainant through the use of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks and own domain name.
...
2007-03-14 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant must establish its trademark rights, under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy and prove that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which it has rights. ...For instance the domain name was found confusingly similar to the trademark NOKIA. See Nokia Corporation v. Nokiagirls.com a.k.a IBCC,
WIPO Case No. ...
2007-08-22 - Case Details
Complainants further contend that the Domain Names are identical with and confusingly similar to the SHERWIN-WILLIAMS Marks pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
Respondent has not contested the assertions by Complainants that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the SHERWIN-WILLIAMS Marks.
...Therefore, the Sole Panelist finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the SHERWIN-WILLIAMS Marks pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
Rights or Legitimate Interest.
...
2001-02-22 - Case Details
The Complainant continues by asserting that the domain name in issue is substantially identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark and that the domain name in issue incorporates the Complainant’s Mark in its entirety.
...Since domain names are currently limited to text, the Panelist finds that the second-level domain "officesource" of the domain name in issue is confusingly similar if not virtually identical to the words "office source" constituting the textual element of the Mark. ...
2002-05-14 - Case Details
In view of the above it is the Panelist’s opinion the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark "ELENA MIRO" of the Complainant, except for the addition of ".net." ...Finally, the Complainant has shown that the Respondent has registered several other domain names, which are identical to, or confusingly similar with well-known Italian trademarks, such as , and . ...
2003-09-23 - Case Details
Namerental.com
(D2001-0060) (Finding that the domain
name was confusingly similar to the Complainant’s "GOOGLE"
mark), see also American Airlines, Inc. v. Zuccarini (FA0009000095695)
(finding that the domain name was confusingly similar
to the Complainant’s "AMERICAN AIRLINES" mark). As stated in a WIPO
decision, "mere additions of minor misspellings to a Complainant’s mark
do not create a new or different mark with which a Respondent has rights; it
results in a domain name that is confusingly similar." America Online
Inc. v. Zuccarini (D2000-1495).
The Panel finds that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LIPITOR mark.
...
2003-03-26 - Case Details
Taking the aforementioned provisions into consideration, the Panel finds as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Panel to consider first whether the Complainant has established relevant trade mark rights. ...The Panel therefore finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark.
The Complainant has therefore satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2018-11-02 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
(i) Identical or confusingly similar
Complainant contends that it is obvious the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's VÚB trademarks. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel must first determine whether the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. ...
2015-03-24 - 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
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