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
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
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
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 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
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
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
Given that "Caledonia" appears to be in common use as a geographical descriptor, the Panel does not accept that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Mark CALEDONIA. The more pressing question is whether the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Mark CALEDONIA MOTOR GROUP. ...As a result, it is clear that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to this common law mark.
The Panel has therefore concluded that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to one of the Complainant’s Marks, namely, CALEDONIA MOTOR GROUP, and also confusingly similar to the mark "Caledonia Motors" in which the Complainant has demonstrated common law rights.
6.3 The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names
The Respondent has asserted no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. ...
2001-09-05 - Case Details
The Domain Names in dispute are misspellings of one or the other of the Complainant’s
trademarks and are confusingly similar to one or the other or both of the Complainant’s
trademarks. Six Continent Hotels, Inc. v. ...Annex 11)
The Complainant has proven that the Domain Names registered by the Respondent are confusingly similar to the extensively used and widely recognized registered trademarks of the Complainant.
...
2003-11-21 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trade mark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...In other words, Respondent has, through the use of a confusingly similar domain name and webpage contents, created a likelihood of confusion with the SWAROVSKI Marks. ...
2012-11-26 - Case Details
So, in order to decide whether the three
Domain Names are confusingly similar to the trademark AMBIEN, the Panel considered
the remaining parts of the Domain Names. ...These two letters sound in a very similar way in the combinations “ambien” and “ambian,” especially in the English language. Therefore, the Panel finds that the part “ambian” in the discussed Domain Names is confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant. ...
2006-03-13 - Case Details
D2000-0662). Further,
a domain name is deemed confusingly similar to a trade mark when a search engine
query for such trade mark pulls up such domain name (see Wal-mart Stores
v. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove (a) that it has rights in a trade mark or service mark, and (b) that the Disputed Domain Name is identical to or confusingly similar to such trade mark or service mark.
...
2004-05-13 - 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 disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar to that 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...
2024-09-06 - Case Details
Furthermore, Complainant states that the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) “.com” does not generally affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar. Complainant asserts that its CAT trademark is clearly recognizable within, and is the distinctive part of, the disputed domain names and, as a result, they are confusingly similar to its CAT trademark.
...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.
Complainant has therefore satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2018-11-06 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the domain names at issue and are confusingly similar to the trademark PROXIFY and PROXIFIER owned by the Complainant.
...The names “proxyfire” and “proxifier” are very similar and substantially identical phonetically. The disputed domain names and the trade mark PROXIFY are not identical and not quite so similar visually, but are, in the panel's view potentially confusingly similar.
...
2009-07-10 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant's trademark is a highly distinctive and well-known worldwide. It has no independent or normal language meaning. ...The addition of generic words, hyphens and geographical terms to a distinctive trademark does not prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.
For these reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.
...
2015-08-28 - Case Details