Considering these requirements, the Panel rules as follows:
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. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which
the Complainant has rights, meaning that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under
paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2022-05-06 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a
trademark for purposes of the Policy when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar
approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name. ...D2018-2348, which concerned the domain name in which the
panel held that was confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s HMRC
trademark.
...
2022-05-31 - Case Details
As such, the Panel
finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademark, and
accordingly, paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-05-27 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its EVEREST RE trademark,
and the dictionary words “ever” and “help” contribute to the confusion, because their combination reflects the
Complainant’s email address used for technical support of its Everest online payments, and the Internet
address of the Complainant’s self-service portal for its customers. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided information about its registrations of the EVEREST RE trademark and has
established its trademark rights for the purposes of the Policy.
...
2023-03-23 - Case Details
The Panel determines that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MODERNA
trademark.
Complainant has established that it owns rights in the trademark MODERNA and that the disputed domain
names is confusingly similar to that trademark.
...There is scant evidence
on the record of this proceeding as to why Respondent decided to register the disputed domain name
confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark and company name. Respondent had notice and opportunity
to present evidence to the Panel regarding its motive for such registration. ...
2022-06-15 - Case Details
The Panel will deal with each of the requirements in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the Domain Name is (i) identical or
confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, (ii) 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...
2022-06-14 - 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...
2022-06-21 - Case Details
The Panel finds, therefore, that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MODERNA
mark for purposes of the first Policy element and concludes that the Complainant has established the first
element of the Complaint.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-08-11 - Case Details
Complainant
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. The disputed
domain name identically adopts the Complainant’s 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...
2022-07-07 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights over the trademark BLACKBAUD based on the
trademark registrations cited under section 4 above.
...As indicated above, the disputed domain name, confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, has
been pointed to a website displaying pay-per-click links related to the Complainant’s market niche.
...
2022-06-29 - Case Details
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trademark
PRAGMATICPLAY. The mark PRAGMATICPLAY is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name. The
Panel has had little difficulty in finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark
PRAGMATICPLAY. The addition of the two letters “tw” and the hyphen “-” does not prevent the finding of
confusingly similarity.
...
2022-06-29 - Case Details
Further, according to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences from Respondent’s
failure to submit a Response as it considers appropriate.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the
PRINCIPAL trademark in which 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...
2022-06-27 - Case Details
Nevertheless, the Panel may rule in the Complainant’s favor only after the
Complainant has proven that the above elements are present.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant is required to establish that the disputed domain
name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...Therefore, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s trademark because it is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name.
...
2022-07-01 - Case Details
The Complainant bears the burden of proof for each of these elements.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain names are
identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly
similar to the Complainant’s LEGO marks. The Respondent’s incorporation of the Complainant’s mark in
full in the disputed domain names is evidence that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s marks. ...
2022-06-30 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the CHEMOURS trademark. The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the CHEMOURS trademark in its entirety.
Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2022-02-17 - Case Details
Long after the Complainant established its rights in its famous trademark, and with its knowledge, the Respondent acquired the confusingly similar disputed domain name to redirect Internet traffic to websites with links displaying the Complainant’s trademark and promoting PPC or affiliate advertising links for the Respondent’s commercial gain. ...Under such circumstances the Panel finds that the Complainant’s trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name and the copying of the Complainant’s sub-domain confirms that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name precisely because it believed that it was confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
Considering the above the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, therefore, the Complainant has established its case under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2022-02-14 - 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. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the BEIN trademark in which the Complainant has rights and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are fulfilled.
...
2022-02-09 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has proved that it has rights in the trademark CENTERPOINT ENERGY.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the trademark CENTERPOINT ENERGY in which the Complainant has rights and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy therefore are fulfilled.
...
2022-03-02 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name consists of the registered trademark META and the term
“token”. ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks and
that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2023-02-03 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has produced sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it has registered trademark rights in
the marks ALLEN & OVERY and ALLENOVERY in numerous jurisdictions. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-01-04 - Case Details