Complainants
The Complainants make the following contentions:
The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainants’ EROS marks except that the domain names include geographic references to the city of Montreal. ...See paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds Complainants’ attempt to show that the and domain names are identical or confusingly similar to marks in which Complainants’ have rights confusing. ...
2005-04-20 - Case Details
The Complainant must prove each of these three elements, which are discussed in turn below.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first matter which the Complainant must establish is that it “has rights” in EVE’S ADDICTION as a common law mark. ...A series of previous cases have found that such domain names are confusingly similar to the marks which they misspell. (See e.g. Yurtici Kargo Servisi A.S. v. Yurticicargo Yurticikargo,
WIPO Case No. ...
2007-06-27 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to either its registered word mark ALLOS, its device mark ALLOS THERAPEUTICS.INC or its corporate and trade name “Allos Therapeutics Inc.”.
...The Panel also does not consider that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to ALLOS as the Disputed Domain Name is distinguished by the addition of the word “therapeutics”.
...
2007-06-25 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
(a) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the domain names and are confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark SWANK.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights in the SWANK trademark, by virtue of the two U.S. ...
2009-03-18 - Case Details
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 name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s marks.
...Hence the Panel concludes that the Domain Name is, for the purposes of the Policy, confusing similar to Complainant’s marks.
Complainant has therefore shown that it has the appropriate rights in a trademark, and that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to this mark. ...
2006-01-04 - Case Details
The Panel proceeds to deal with each of these elements in turn:
A Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant relies both upon its registered rights referred to above and set out in Annex 10 to the Complaint. ...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant expressly incorporates in its submissions relating to bad faith its submissions relating to the identical or confusingly similar nature of the mark and in relation to rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.
...
2006-09-27 - 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. ...D2016-0591 (“[t]he omission of the apostrophe, a character not permitted in
domain names, is irrelevant for analysis of whether the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s mark”). It is also well established that a disputed domain name that wholly incorporates a
trademark will normally be considered confusingly similar to that trademark for purposes of the Policy despite
the addition of a hyphen. ...
2025-04-10 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that twenty five of the domain names in this matter do indeed constitute what is referred to as “typo-squatting.” ...D2003-0994 (finding that disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the marks which they misspell).
The domain names that are slight misspellings of Complainant’s marks are:
1. ...
2011-02-01 - Case Details
No. 6,777,803 for the DIMENSION 20
& Design trademark. Complainant alleges that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its DIMENSION 20
Mark because it incorporates the distinctive DIMENSION 20 Mark in its entirety with only the addition of the
word “merch”.
...Having considered the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules, the
Supplemental Rules, and applicable principles of law, the Panel’s findings on each of the above-cited
elements are as follows.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires Complainant show that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly
similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights. ...
2023-08-03 - Case Details
Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) that English shall be the language of the proceeding.
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 above disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant has shown that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2010-03-05 - Case Details
Some prior Panels have found that a domain
name combining another’s mark with the word "sucks" was confusingly
similar to a complainant’s mark, while other Panels have found such a domain
name not confusingly similar to the mark. ...Purge I.T., WIPO Case
No. D2000-0583 (directlinesucks.com is confusingly similar); ADT Servs.
AG v. ADTSucks.com, WIPO Case No. D2001-0213
(adtsucks.com is confusingly similar).
...
2001-09-24 - Case Details
The Panel has rendered its decision in English accordingly.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), the Complainants have to prove that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainants have rights.
...In light of the Panel's finding under the first element, namely that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainants' trademark, the Panel adopts the view of prior UDRP panels, who have found that "the right to criticize does not necessarily extend to registering and using a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant's trademark." ...
2015-07-13 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant is the owner of the trademark FIVE GUYS both by registration and acquired reputation and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark FIVE GUYS.
...The addition of the term "Iran" does not therefore prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.
It is also well accepted that a generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") suffix, in this case ".com", may be ignored when assessing the similarity between a trademark and a domain name (see, e.g., VAT Holding AG v Vat.com,
WIPO Case No. ...
2014-12-31 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark and that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to such trademark.
...The Panel finds that the Complainant’s pleadings insufficiently demonstrate that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademark.
Therefore, the first element of the Policy is not met. Nonetheless, the Panel will discuss the other elements of this case.
...
2015-05-13 - Case Details
Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith because (i) the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s predecessor-in-title’s trademark rights in YUMMY MUMMY when the Respondent registered the confusingly similar disputed domain names; and (ii) the Respondent registered and is using confusingly similar domain names to interfere with the Complainant’s business.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant does have registered trademark rights in the mark YUMMY MUMMY by virtue of its Canadian Trademark Registration No. ...
2015-02-19 - Case Details
The Complainant further contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark, as it incorporates the trademark DIRECTV entirely and merely adds the generic term "net".
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the owner of the registered United States trademark DIRECTV. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's trademark in its entirety. ...
2014-09-26 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There is no doubt that Complainant holds rights in the famous trademark ZIPPO. The Panel further concludes that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the ZIPPO mark, since it incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds the generic term "catalog," suggesting to the Internet user that one is likely to find an online catalog of ZIPPO products at the corresponding website.
...On balance, the Panel also finds the Domain Name confusingly similar to Complainant's mark.
Accordingly, the Panel concludes that Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) has been satisfied by Complainant..
...
2014-08-18 - Case Details
In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, if the Respondent does not submit a Response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute based upon the Complaint.
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, it is well established that such element may be disregarded when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. Proactiva Medio Ambiente, S.A. v. Proactiva,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0182.
...
2014-08-05 - 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.
...Moreover, the registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a well-known registered trademark by an entity that has no relationship to that mark may be sufficient evidence of bad faith registration and use. ...
2016-10-03 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well-established that "a domain name that wholly incorporates a Complainant's registered mark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP" (Dr. ...Hka c/o Dynadot Privacy,
WIPO Case No. D2014-1874 (the domain name is confusingly similar to the mark IKEA and …to the extent ".buzz" denotes news and information about "Ikea" this would exacerbate confusion); Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v. ...
2015-09-30 - Case Details