According to the Complainant, the Respondent has registered
the domain name in dispute so confusingly similar to its Trademarks to capitalize
on the valuable goodwill associated with the said Trademarks. ...The Panel finds that the domain name in dispute is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademarks and that the first criterion of the Policy has been met.
...
2007-02-02 - Case Details
Respondent has not contested the assertions by Complaint that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the LINKSHARE Marks.
As numerous courts and prior UDRP panels have recognized,
the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish
that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s
registered mark. ...Decision
The Panel concludes (a) that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered LINKSHARE Marks, (b) that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name and (c) that Respondent registered and used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. ...
2007-05-10 - Case Details
Consequently, the Panel shall further analyze that the above-mentioned circumstances are present in this matter.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There are two requirements that a complainant must establish under this paragraph, namely: that it has rights in a trade or service mark, and that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark.
...Further, the Panel must appreciate whether the trademark is identical or confusingly similar to the disputed domain name.
The trademark is FRA.BO and the disputed domain name is . ...
2009-03-27 - Case Details
Complainant
1. The domain name in question is confusingly similar to its Philips mark registered by the Complainant in which it has worldwide rights and which has acquired a worldwide reputation.
2. ...The domain name is, in the judgment of the Panel, confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks. The addition of the ‘anti’ does nothing to deflect the impact on the viewer of the mark. ...
2001-04-02 - Case Details
D2000- 0274 in which
the misspelling of was found to be confusingly similar
to the trademark "DUNCAN HINES".
The Respondent’s domain name is visually and phonically similar to the service mark in which the Complainant has prior rights. The Panel finds that the domain name is clearly confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered service mark. The Complainant has met the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2002-05-22 - Case Details
A. The Domain Name is Confusingly Similar to Complainant’s Mark
Complainant has shown that it has common law rights in the SERMO trademark. ...D2007-0769 (for purposes of the first prong of the Policy, is confusingly similar to CHUBB trademark); Societé Air France v. Virtual Dates, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0168 ( is confusingly similar to AIR FRANCE trademark); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2008-07-09 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant submits that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the famous LEGO trademark as the Domain Name contains the LEGO trademark in its entirety. ...Many UDRP panels have found that a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark where the disputed domain name incorporates the complainant’s trademark in its entirety. ...
2012-02-15 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar for the purpose of the Policy to the
Complainant’s trademark JETCOST.
...For the reasons mentioned above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to
the Complainant’s JETCOST trademark.
The Complainant has thus fulfilled paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2023-07-13 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Marks because the disputed names wholly incorporate the Complainant’s ONEY mark. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Marks. The Respondent deviously attached the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) “.live” to the ONEY mark to create the disputed domain names which are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Marks and virtually identical to the Complainants ONEY LIVE mark with the exception of the period punctuation (which is a technical requirement of the domain name system).
...
2020-12-29 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contentions can be summarized as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name reproduces the entirety of the Complainant’s trademark with the addition of the term “computing”. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, this Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark SNOWFLAKE. ...
2020-10-12 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name consists of Complainant’s famous mark to which the common term “lottery” is appended and the gTLD suffix “.net”. ...D2000-0119 ( found to be identical or confusingly similarly to the mark, C-COM). The panel finds that the domain name at issue is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered mark.
...
2007-06-18 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name consists of Complainant’s famous mark to which the common term “lottery” is appended and the gTLD suffix “.net”. ...D2000-0119 ( found to be identical or confusingly similarly to the mark, C-COM). The panel finds that the domain name at issue is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered mark.
...
2007-06-15 - Case Details
Furthermore, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the FORBES Mark because it incorporates that Mark in its entirety and adds the term “alert”, which does not prevent a finding of confusingly similarity. ...It is well settled that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), here “.com”, is not significant in determining whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. CBS Broadcasting Inc. v. Worldwide Webs, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0834.
...
2021-11-15 - Case Details
The Respondent says that the Complainant’s case is based on the incorrect proposition that "…a misspelling of a name is ipso facto confusingly similar…". It "…encourages the panel to eschew the imbecility of outlawing sites that are spelled similar to another." ...The Respondent asserts strongly that a mere misspelling should not ground a complaint and lead to a conclusion that a domain name is confusingly similar. The Complainant’s assertion on this point is imprecise. It uses the phrase "substantially similar".
...
2001-05-18 - Case Details
The Complainant
claims that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its trademark because the CANVA trademark is
recognizable within the Domain Name. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP, the Complainant must prove that the Domain Name is identical
or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2022-11-18 - Case Details
Likewise, the use of a confusingly similar domain name to divert Internet users to a third-party site offering products or services in competition with Complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is undisputed that Complainant has rights over the ALLSTATE and ALLSTATE.COM trademarks.
...
2011-04-27 - Case Details
D2009-1097 (a domain name that is “simply missing a single letter in the mark” is
confusingly similar to the mark); and Research In Motion Limited v. Privacy Locked LLC/Nat Collicot, WIPO
Case No. D2009-0320 (a domain name that contains a complainant’s trademark “absent one letter” is
confusingly similar to the mark).
As a result of the above analysis, the Panel makes no determination as to whether the Disputed Domain
Name is identical or confusingly similar to any of the SEAS Trademarks other than U.S. ...
2023-10-10 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(i) Identical or confusingly similar
Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its 99DESIGNS trademark. ...D2021-2673 (finding domain name confusingly similar to CIC).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which
Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2023-08-23 - Case Details
D2005-0831 (finding confusingly similar to complainant’s GILEAD SCIENCES name and mark); Auxilium Pharmaceuticals. Inc. v. Kumar Patel, FA 642141 (NAF April 6, 2006) (finding confusingly similar to complainant’s AUXILIUM name and mark)
6A.5 The Disputed Domain Name adds only the non-distinctive term “prepaid” to the MASTERCARD mark. ...D2007-0691 (finding the addition of the generic term “apply” to MASTERCARD does not change the overall impression of the mark and that the domain is confusingly similar to MasterCard’s MASTERCARD mark.
6A.6 For the above reasons, the Panel comes to the conclusion that the first element under the Policy — that the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has rights — has been established.
...
2007-10-01 - Case Details
Complainant argues that the Domain Name is substantially identical and confusingly similar to the UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD mark, pursuant to Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. Complainant asserts that in the First Complaint against the Respondent concerning the Complainant’s registered trademarks for OXFORD UNIVERSITY and the Registrant's domain name , WIPO found that the two names were confusingly similar. ...Furthermore, Respondent has not contested the assertions by Complainant that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark.
Therefore, the Sole Panelist finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD mark pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2001-08-27 - Case Details