Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
(a) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark ST. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established its rights in the ST. BALDRICK'S Trademark, by virtue of two United States trademark registrations.
...
2007-07-19 - Case Details
D2001-0654 (August 24, 2001) § 8A (finding, inter
alia, the domain names and
virtually identical and confusingly similar to the Backstreet Boys’ mark); AltaVista
Co. v. Yomtobian, WIPO Case No. D2000-0937
(October 13, 2000) § 6 (finding the domain names
and confusingly similar to the trademark Alta Vista); Oxygen
Media, LLC v. ...D2000-0330 (June 7, 2000),
§ 3 (finding the domain name virtually identical
and confusingly similar to Encyclopaedia Britannica’s mark).
The Panel finds that the Complainant has met its burden of proof and has established that the domain names at issue, while not identical, are confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2002-10-08 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant owns numerous United States trademark registrations for the MICROSOFT mark some claiming use since 1975. ...In summary, Respondent's initial use of the disputed name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark, to divert traffic to its website is a bad faith registration and use. ...
2004-05-04 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold inquiry: a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. ...Thus, the Panel concludes that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CMA CGM Mark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant.
...
2022-01-19 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark and, second, is the Disputed Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
...Second, the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark is sufficient evidence of bad faith registration and use. ...
2015-06-08 - Case Details
A complainant must prove each of these three elements to succeed.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant clearly has rights in the VALIUM trademark as evidenced by its registrations described above.
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the VALIUM mark for the purposes of the Policy and thus paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been established.
...
2017-03-13 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark and, second, is the Disputed Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
...D2004-0117 (a domain name incorporating a well-known trademark combined with a geographically descriptive term is confusingly similar to the trademark); Inter-IKEA Systems B.V. v. Hoon Huh,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0438 (the addition of the term "korea" in does not prevent the domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark).
...
2017-07-27 - Case Details
c) That the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its mark for the following reasons:
(a) The domain name is confusingly similar to the dominant portion of the Complainant’s TWO MEN AND A TRUCK marks.
...c) The disputed domain name deletes a non-distinctive letter and is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel accepts the Complainant’s contentions. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. ...
2012-05-18 - Case Details
As to this question, the Panel notes the statement in the auDA auDRP Overview 1.0, above:
"Where the domain name consists of the acronym of the complainant's trademark or name, the domain name is unlikely to be considered confusingly similar to the mark or name unless the complainant can establish a reputation in the acronym."
...Here the only evidence the Complainant has produced in support of its assertion that the Domain Name is synonymous with its CEIL mark is the logo shown in Annex 9 which the Complainant contends is deceptively similar to that branding. There are two difficulties with this. First, such evidence is generally excluded from consideration when assessing whether a domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark or name. ...
2018-04-26 - Case Details
Other decisions under the Policy have found that domain names containing a
combination of 1 800 and the Complainant’s trademark were confusingly similar
to Complainant’s mark. See The Rockport Co. LLC v. Powell, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0064 (April 16, 2000) (<1800rockport.com>
confusingly similar to Complainant’s "ROCKPORT" trademarks); RFI
Financial, Inc. v. ...D2001-1242 (December 11, 2002) (<1800redroof.com> confusingly
similar to Complainant’s "RED ROOF" trademarks); Reuters Ltd.
v. "Domain for Sale", WIPO Case
No. ...
2002-06-21 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, this Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Names , and are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark JACADI. ...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. ...
2021-05-05 - Case Details
MTO C.A. and Diabetes Education Long Life,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0363 (finding confusingly similar to DELL); Telstra Corporation Limited v. Ozurls,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0046 (finding confusingly similar to TELSTRA).
...As the Disputed Domain Name uses the mark ALLIANZ, it is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALLIANZ Marks.
For all of the foregoing reasons, this Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name, , is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ALLIANZ Marks in which the Complainant has established rights. ...
2011-03-31 - Case Details
MTO C.A. and Diabetes Education Long Life,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0363 (finding confusingly similar to DELL); Telstra Corporation Limited v. Ozurls,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0046 (finding confusingly similar to TELSTRA). ...As the Disputed Domain Name uses PUBLIC STORAGE, it is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PS Mark.
For all of the foregoing reasons, this Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name, , is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s PS Mark in which the Complainant has established rights. ...
2011-05-09 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(a) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark MOSHI MONSTERS.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights in the MOSHI MONSTERS trademark, by virtue of its U.S. ...
2010-08-31 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established rights in its mark STAPLES through registration of the mark on the Principal Register of the U.S. ...D2000-0716 (September 5, 2000) finding that deleting
the letter "s" from Complainant’s UNIVERSAL STUDIOS STORE mark did
not change the overall impression of the mark and thus made the disputed domain
name confusingly similar to it.
The one-letter difference of each of Respondent’s domain names render them nonsensical, suggesting that Respondent chose them specifically because they are confusingly similar to Complainant’s well-known mark.
...
2004-03-04 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the FLIXBUS trademark. The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to this trademark. ...Ultimately the two terms in written form are confusingly similar, the Panel agrees in this regard with the approach set out in WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9, namely:
“1.9 Is a domain name consisting of a misspelling of the complainant’s trademark (i.e.,typosquatting) confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark?
...
2020-05-21 - Case Details
There is no doubt, in the Panel’s view, that the domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CROWN trademarks.
Other Panels have adopted similar reasoning where additional matter was relevant
to a complainant’s business. ...FA0096466, where
was held confusingly similar to the HOYLE gaming trademark; Telstra Corporation
Limited v. Ozurla, WIPO Case No. ...
2003-04-28 - Case Details
Prior UDRP panels have found disputed domain names containing such elements to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s VULKAN and VOLCANO trademarks. See in this regard Dareos Ltd. and Dareos Inc. v. ...In view of the Panel, the Respondent must have registered these disputed domain names because it believed that they are confusing similar to the Complainant’s VULKAN and/or VOLCANO trademarks. Hence, the Panel concludes that ‘vlk’, ‘vlc’, and ‘wlk’ are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.”
...
2021-03-01 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
As set forth in section 1.7 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third
Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) the standing test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively
straightforward comparison between the trademark and the disputed domain name to determine whether the
disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the trademark. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-11-29 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark and, second, is the Disputed Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. ...Thus, the Panel concludes that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s TOURCOM Mark.
Based on the above, the Panel finds that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant and that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s TOURCOM Mark.
...
2021-06-08 - Case Details