The addition of the Top-Level domain (“TLD”) “.com” is irrelevant in determining whether a domain name is confusingly similar to a mark. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SALESFORCE.COM mark for the same reason. ...Given the substitution of letters (“e” to “c”), the Domain Name and marks cannot be said to be identical, but the Domain Name is certainly confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SALESFORCE Marks.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SALESFORCE Marks for the purposes of the Policy and thus paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been established.
...
2020-01-13 - Case Details
The Panel also finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the PHILIP MORRIS mark. 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 mark. ...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. ...
2015-05-20 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant submits that the domain name , which is in dispute, is virtually identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s BRITANNICA trademarks. ...By reason of the failure of Respondent to file a Response, the Panel infers that Respondent does not contest the proof submitted in the Complaint.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name registered by Respondent is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BRITANNICA trademarks. ...
2005-11-01 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
For the purposes of the first element of the Policy, the Complainant has to identify a trademark in which it has rights to which the domain name is at least confusingly similar. ...For the current purposes the definite article can properly and safely be disregarded.
Thus the disputed domain name is […] confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark THE BANK OF THE PACIFIC.”
Equally, it can be seen from this case that joining the words in a trademark together and adding “.org” to it does not make the domain name any less confusingly similar to the mark. ...
2007-03-14 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The evidence presented by the Complainant demonstrates that Complainant’s service
mark TOP-10 and design has been approved by the United States Patent and Trademark
Office. ...Because both marks are protectable marks and designs, the Panel next looks
to whether the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the service marks. The
Panel finds that the Domain Names , ,
, , and
are confusingly similar to Complainant’s service marks TOP-10 and TOP-10 PROMOTIONS.
...
2001-06-27 - Case Details
Having considered the Complaint and the available evidence, the Panel finds the following:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry – a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trade mark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trade mark.
...This Panel does not find the terms “continental” and “intercontinental” to be confusingly similar. The word “continental” is not simply an attenuated form of the Complainant’s trade mark. ...
2011-09-06 - Case Details
Complainant has established each of these three elements.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
As fraternal twins know quite well, having a similar appearance to another person can cause a great deal of confusion. ...D2006-0777 (finding confusingly similar to
HUMMERT mark); Horn Abbot International Limited v. Ian McMillan, WIPO
Case No. D2005-0198 (finding confusingly similar
to TRIVIAL PURSUIT mark).
...
2007-05-21 - Case Details
It is well-settled that adding the “.com” suffix does not cause an otherwise confusingly similar domain name from being confusingly similar to a trademark. Baumberger v. SAND Webnames, WIPO Case No. ...Further, previous panels have found that, where a domain name takes a mark of a company and then adds words merely descriptive of the services provided by such company, the result is a domain name that is confusingly similar to the subject mark. See, Blue Nile, Inc. v. Mrs. Jello, LLC, WIPO Case No. D2005-0639 (September 26, 2005) (finding that the domain name was confusingly similar to the mark BLUE NILE in the diamond industry); My Diamond Place, Ltd. v. ...
2006-10-04 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel finds the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the PERRIGO Mark in
which Complainant has rights and Complainant has thus satisfied its burden under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the
Policy.
...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Complainant contends that because Respondent has created a domain name that is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s PERRIGO Mark, as well as its domain name, it is implausible to believe that
Respondent did not have actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark when it registered its confusingly similar
disputed domain name. ...
2022-09-13 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s international and nationally registered trademark, ZAMBON. ...The Panel, therefore, concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, according to the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2021-02-05 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the WAL-MART marks because they incorporate (and are visually and phonetically similar to) the Complainant's well-known and distinctive WAL-MART marks in their entirety.
...Accordingly, , , , , , , , and are confusingly similar to the WAL-MART marks.
In regard to and , prior panels have found that phonetic similarity can render a domain name confusingly similar to a trademark. ...
2008-10-27 - Case Details
AAIM,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0403.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant must establish rights in a trademark and secondly that the disputed domain name is identical to or confusingly similar to the trademark in which Complainant has rights.
...D2003-0696 (a domain name is “nearly identical or confusingly similar” to a complainant’s mark when it “fully incorporate[s] said mark”; holding , , and other domains confusingly similar to the complainant’s PEPSI mark) and Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. v. ...
2011-04-28 - Case Details
The Complainant currently receives more than 90,000 discrete visits to its website each month.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s service mark CANCER TREATMENT CENTERS OF AMERICA and differs only in that it merely deletes the "s" from the word "centers."
...The Panel therefore concludes
that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service
mark in which the Complainant has prior exclusive rights."
...
2003-10-03 - Case Details
Copies of each of these decisions were attached to Complaint.
(i) Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant contends that the domain names currently used by Respondent are
confusingly similar to Complainant’s famous trademarks. ...Zuccarini, NAF Case No. 95762 (finding that, by misspelling words
and adding letters to words, a respondent does not create a distinct mark but
nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s
mark).
Complainant submits that the addition of the generic top-level domain “.com”
is irrelevant in determining whether the disputed domain names are confusingly
similar to Complainant’s famous trademarks. ...
2005-12-12 - Case Details
It is generally regarded as prima facie evidence of no rights or legitimate interests if a complainant shows
that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark, that the
respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and that a complainant has not
authorized the respondent to use its mark (or an expression which is confusingly similar to its mark), whether
in the disputed domain name or otherwise. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Complainant first contends that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith because Respondent has created a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s globally well-known ANTI SOCIAL Mark, as found in section 6A above. ...
...
2024-05-10 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the IMPOSSIBLE QUIZ trademark. The Panel finds the Disputed Domain
Name is confusingly similar to this trademark. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the IMPOSSIBLE QUIZ trademark. The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to this trademark. ...
2022-09-09 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant alleges that :
Identical and Confusingly Similar
The domain name is identical and confusingly similar to the TRAVELPLUS marks,
the trade name and the web sites of Complainant and its licensees. ...The Panel also finds that the domain name is confusingly
similar to Complainant’s TRAVELPLUS Marks. See. World Wrestling Federation
Entertainment, Inc. v. ...
2003-07-17 - Case Details
It is well
settled that a domain name which differs from a complainant’s mark by
only one letter is very likely to be confusingly similar to the trademark --especially
since the trademark is distinctive. (See Reuters Ltd v. ...Moreover, the Respondent’s registration of domain names that are confusingly
similar to the Complainant’s mark, which is widely known and has been
used in commerce for more than 53 years, is further evidence of bad faith. ...
2006-02-15 - Case Details
page 3
The Complainant asserts that each of the above-listed factors is established, as substantiated as follows:
1) The Domain Name is Identical or Confusingly Similar to the Complainant's Trademark
The first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires a complainant to establish that it has rights in a
trademark or service mark and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that
trademark or service mark. ...Prior UDRP panels have found similarly composed
disputed domain names to be confusingly similar to the trademarks at issue. For example: LPL Financial
LLC v. Contact Privacy Inc. ...
2024-10-25 - Case Details
These elements are discussed below.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark and, second, are the Disputed Domain Names identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
...A domain name is “nearly identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark when it fully incorporate[s] said mark.” See PepsiCo. Inc. v. ...
2015-03-11 - Case Details