Complainant
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its SEPTODONT trademark since the Disputed Domain Name and the trademark SEPTODONT share the same overall impression with the only difference that one letter placed in the middle of the name is different.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the owner of the SEPTODONT trademark as evidenced by its trademark registrations. ...
2021-07-05 - 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...
2023-01-20 - Case Details
Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith for the following reasons: (i) the Respondent knew about the Complainant’s rights in the trademark NUTRAWAYS when she registered the confusingly similar domain name; (ii) the Respondent changed the name of the Registrant from her personal name to her company’s name, “Victoria’s Health Inc.” on May 27, 2002 and then changed it again on January 31, 2012 back into her own personal name; (iii) the Respondent registered a confusingly similar domain name to interfere with the Complainant’s business; (iv) the Respondent has never made a bona fide use of the confusingly similar domain name; and (v) the Respondent has ignored and refused to respond to the Complainant regarding the unauthorized ownership of the confusingly similar disputed domain name.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant does have trademark rights in the mark NUTRAWAYS by virtue of its continuous use of the trademark and trade name dating back to May 2, 1994, in association with retail store services.
...
2012-04-16 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant’s arguments are mainly the following:
(i) The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is confusingly similar to trademarks in which Complainant has rights, as per copies of trademark registrations submitted.
...The inclusion of additional terms such as “andtsl” does not dispel a domain name from being identical or confusingly similar and is not sufficient to render a domain name distinctive from the marks of the Complainant.
...
2012-06-21 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark 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. ...D2006-1050 and MasterCard International Incorporated v. Mike Morgan,
WIPO Case No. D2008-1927 to similar effect.
Accordingly the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark. ...
2012-06-06 - Case Details
Complainant sites a number of UDRP decisions where the panels have found that such “typosquatting” is held to be confusingly similar to the complainant's trademark or sites and thus constitutes a satisfaction of the first criteria under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy for finding for the Complainant. ...Accordingly, the Panel therefore finds that the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights and therefore the first criterion of paragraph 4(a) the Policy is satisfied.
...
2010-07-28 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
registered trademarks; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed
domain name; and that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...See
section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.1
Therefore, the Panel finds the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademark.
The Complainant has, therefore, satisfied the requirements of the first element of paragraph B(11)(d)(1) of
the ADR Rules.
...
2023-08-28 - Case Details
The third element a complainant must establish
is that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
page 3
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establish that the disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-06-26 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the f irst 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...
2024-01-17 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark or trademarks and, second, is the Disputed Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to those trademarks.
...Domain names comprising phonetic variations of trademarks have been held to be confusingly similar. See, e.g. Xerox Corp. v. Stonybrook Investments, Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0380; Microsoft Corporation v. ...
2019-02-22 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant alleges that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant´s trademark, as it incorporates the JDE trademark in its entirety with the addition of the descriptive term “cofee”, which is obviously an intentional misspelling of the word coffee.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established its trademarks rights in JDE as evidenced by the trademark registrations submitted with the Complaint, as mentioned above.
...
2019-01-17 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under the first UDRP element, the Complainant must prove that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...It is well-established, that “the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain name comprising typos […]) to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith”.7 The evidence on file shows that the Complainant’s trademark is widely known, therefore the Respondent’s unauthorized registration of the Domain Name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark is in bad faith.
...
2019-12-30 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant's provision to the Panel of evidence that it owns a valid USPTO registration for the service mark, DEPENDABLE STAFFING, confirms that the Complainant possesses rights in that mark for the purposes of Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). ...Thus, following the near unanimous precedent set in prior UDRP rulings when examining like circumstances, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names are at least confusingly similar to the Complainant's service mark. See, Accenture Global Servs. GmbH v. Alok Mishra,
WIPO Case No. ...
2009-11-17 - Case Details
It is evident that is virtually identical and confusingly
similar to the INVISALIGN mark. As numerous panels have held, the “.com”
can be disregarded when comparing a domain name and a trademark. ...See
Policy, paragraph 4(b). One example is the use of the confusingly similar
domain name to “attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent’s]
web site.” ...
2006-03-14 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar (Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy)
6.4 There is but a small and insignificant difference between the disputed
domain name and Complainant’s mark, i.e., the omission of a “w”.
...As is the case here: this Panel finds the disputed
domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, and that
Respondent has engaged in typo squatting. See, The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.
v. ...
2005-06-14 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances any one of which, if proved, shall demonstrate Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii) above.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Domain Name
Complainant has proved that Respondent’s Domain Name is confusingly similar to a service mark in which Complainant has rights.
...There can be no question about the fact that Respondent’s Domain Name, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s service mark, FLAGSHIP BANK. Indeed they are virtually identical.
...
2001-11-16 - Case Details
It is not necessary for the Panel to determine whether Respondent has a legitimate interest in the domain name "mclanenortheastsucks.com" because Complainant has failed to prove that the name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Identical or Confusingly Similar to Trademark
The Rules require that the Complaint "specify" the trademarks on which the Complaint is based and "for each mark, describe the goods or services, if any, with which the mark is used." ...Because Complainant has failed to prove that Respondent does not have a legitimate interest or right in the domain name "mclanenortheast.com", it is unnecessary to determine whether Complainant has carried its burden of showing that that domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
As to "mclanenortheastsucks.com", this Panel determines that the domain name is not identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights. ...
2001-01-25 - Case Details
Complainants
The Complainants contend that:
- The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks of Logica.
- At no time did they authorize the Respondent to provide goods and services using the Logica name or trademarks...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainants' trademarks.
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the domain names.
...
2001-01-19 - 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.
...It is well established that a domain name that wholly incorporates a trademark may be confusingly similar to that trademark for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of a descriptive or generic word. ...
2016-11-22 - Case Details
However, noting the fact that the Disputed Domain Name redirects to the other Disputed Domain Name , and in all the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds it more likely than not that both Disputed Domain Names are registered under common control by the same entity.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
...D2001-0778 ( was found confusingly similar to the PLAYBOY mark); and Adaptive Molecular Technologies, Inc. v. Piscilla Woodward S Charles R Thorton, d/b/a Machines & More,
WIPO Case No. ...
2017-06-15 - Case Details