In its communications the Respondent alleged a relationship with the Complainant, based upon which it has a legitimate interest in using the disputed domain name.
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 name is 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 disputed domain name is 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 name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2010-04-23 - Case Details
In this regard, it should be noted that there are numerous prior UDRP panel decisions where minor differences of spelling have been held to make a domain name confusingly similar to a trade or service mark.
For these reasons, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the ANYWAYANYDAY service marks in which the Complainant has rights.
...At the same time, the disputed domain names represent confusingly similar misspellings of the word combination “ANYWAYANYDAY”, registered and extensively used by the Complainant as a service mark. ...
2013-04-09 - Case Details
As Complainant states, if Respondent merely deleted or added punctuation, the Disputed Domain Name is considered to be confusingly similar. Further, a domain name is confusingly similar if it combines two or more trademarks of a complainant as in this case. ...Accordingly, the only issue remaining is as to whether the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trademarks. As stated above, in Complainant’s contentions regarding the Disputed Domain Name being confusingly similar, Complainant has made a straightforward case for such a result in that the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the two trademarks of Parent except for an apostrophe. ...
2013-09-02 - Case Details
Notably, Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Marks because it fully
incorporates Complainant’s DISCOVER and DISCOVER PERSONAL LOAN Marks. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-12-18 - Case Details
The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed
domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. The disputed domain name
only differs from the BARRACUDANETWORKS mark by the replacement of the letter “c” with the letter “k”
and is therefore a misspelling which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark in terms of section
1.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-04-10 - Case Details
Neither of the Respondent’s
e-mails to the Center (on June 12 and June 19, 2023) addressed the contentions in the Complaint.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element the Complainant must have trademark or service mark rights and the Domain Name
must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark or service mark.
...The Complainant has not granted any license or authorization for the Respondent to use the KAROLINSKA Mark nor is the Respondent commonly known by the D...
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith...
2023-08-04 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its DANSKO trademark
due to the fact that each of the disputed domain names includes the complete trademark. ...Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent
registered the confusingly similar disputed domain names and used them as websites to promote identical
goods in competition with or to imitate the Complainant.
...
2023-08-23 - Case Details
Due to the fact that the disputed
domain consists of an obvious misspelling of the Complainant's ALSTOM trademark, with the part “mo”
instead of “om”, and the additional word “group” the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is
confusingly similar to this mark.
Additionally, it is well established that the gTLD (in this case “.net”) is generally disregarded when
considering whether a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which the
complainant has rights (see section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).
For all the foregoing reasons, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to
trademarks in which the Complainant has rights and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy
therefore are fulfilled.
...
2023-06-22 - 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
Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the first element of the Policy has been established.
...
2024-10-31 - Case Details
It is well established that a domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element. This practice is commonly referred to as “typosquatting” and creates a virtually identical and/or confusingly similar domain name to the Complainant’s trademark. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel has no doubt that “caceis” is a term directly connected with the Complainant.
...
2020-04-17 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that its INSTAGRAM trademark is readily recognizable in the disputed domain name, rendering the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. Prior UDRP panels have held similar domain names to be confusingly similar to the respective complainant’s trademarks. ...It is already well established that the addition of a gTLD extension such as “.com” 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 trademarks, and that the Complainant has satisfied the first element of the Policy.
...
2020-07-02 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant considers that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to trade marks in which the Complainant has rights, as it incorporates the Complainant’s trade mark together with the descriptive word “guy”.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has clearly established that it is proprietor to several trade mark registrations for the trade mark WHATSAPP, which are registered prior to the registration of the Domain Name.
...
2020-09-29 - Case Details
The domain name (i) includes exactly and in its entirety Complainant’s THE HONEY BAKED HAM COMPANY Mark, without changes or additional generic words, and (ii) is confusingly similar, upon similar comparison, to Complainant’s registered domain names and .
...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s
contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the foregoing facts, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered HONEYBAKED Marks in that the Disputed Domain Names are either identical to or insignificant variations of those HONEYBAKED Marks.
...
2005-02-11 - Case Details
These three elements are considered below.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Domain Names, and ,
are confusingly similar to the Kazaa mark, even though their are each followed
by a suffix, as the presence of a suffix does not prevent similarity, see
Yahoo!...D2000-0849. Therefore, the domain name “Shazaa” is
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s KaZaa mark
However with respect to , the Panel finds it neither identical or confusingly similar with the KAZAA mark, when considered strictly as Domain Name. ...
2004-07-16 - Case Details
In view of the Amended Complaint and the Response, the Panel makes the following specific findings:
I. The Domain Names are confusingly similar
Respondents’ Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainants’ marks. As an initial matter, the existence or non-existence of the .com and .info suffixes is irrelevant to a determination as to whether the prefixes of the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainants’ marks. ...In addition, the products offered on the Respondents’ website, while not likely to be the type of products offered by Complainants, do appear to be targeted to similar markets, people with some form of health problem. Accordingly, Complainants have satisfied the first element of the Policy in that Respondents’ Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainants’ marks.
...
2005-04-14 - Case Details
Respondent has not contested the assertions by Complainant that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the IDENTITY GUARD Mark.
As numerous courts and prior UDRP panels have recognized, the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety may be sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to complainant's registered mark. ...Decision
The Panel concludes (a) that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's registered IDENTITY GUARD Mark, (b) that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and (c) that Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. ...
2009-06-05 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its AEG mark. The dominant part of the disputed domain name is the term “aeg”, which is confusingly similar as well as identical to the registered trademark AEG. ...These elements are discussed as follows.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
For the Complainant to make its case under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it must prove that it both has rights in a mark, and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that mark. ...
2009-11-06 - Case Details
The panel found in favour of the complainants as “the domain name wholly incorporates the Complainants’ trademarks” and is therefore confusingly similar to both trade marks. A similar decision was reached in S.P.A., Fila Sport S.P.A., v. Classic Jack,
WIPO Case No. ...In this decision, the panel held that:
“A domain name containing two trade marks of different entities does not mean its owner has created a new name but rather it means the domain name is confusingly similar to both of the trade marks.”
In the light of the above, the Panel considers the Disputed Domain Name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark. ...
2008-08-08 - Case Details
The Respondent is therefore using a domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark to entice visitors to a website on which it offers competing drugs for sale. ...Indeed, it is hard to see how it plausibly could.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and is inherently likely to attract Internet users seeking the Complainant’s Valium product. ...
2008-04-14 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar to Trademarks in which the Complainant has rights
1.a). The Domain Name contains three parts of the trademark RIVER BELLE ONLINE CASINO. ...The Complainant has shown that the disputed Domain Names and are confusingly similar to its trademarks RIVER BELLE and RIVER BELLE ONLINE CASINO and that it has rights in them.
...
2008-04-09 - Case Details