page 4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has registered several ONLYFANS and ONLYFANS.COM trademarks in the United States and
the European Union.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-12-28 - Case Details
page 3
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP, the Complainant must demonstrate that the disputed domain
names are (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...
2023-04-05 - Case Details
The Complainant further notes that the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is confusingly
similar to the Complainant’s JOOP! Store trade mark, as it is merely a rotation, and that it is also confusingly
similar to the Complainant’s JOOP trade mark, as the disputed domain name incorporates the trade mark
JOOP in its entirety.
...The Complainant further notes that the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s JOOP! Store trade mark, as it is merely a rotation, and that it is also confusingly similar to the Complainant’s JOOP ...
...
2023-03-31 - 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 to the
CLIPS4SALE 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...
2023-02-16 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark or service mark and, if so, the domain
name must be shown to be identical or confusingly similar to that mark.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-10-31 - Case Details
Its main arguments can be summarized as follows:
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its MIROVA trademark
because it incorporates said trademark in its entirety and the latter remains recognizable within it.
...Taking the foregoing provisions into consideration the Panel finds as follows.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant must first establish rights in a trademark or
service mark and secondly establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its
trademark.
...
2022-11-11 - Case Details
Also, the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the domain names and
that are registered by the Complainant.
...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.
...
2022-12-23 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar with the BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM Marks pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
Complainant further contends that the addition of the letters “im”, “m” or “h” to the BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM Marks and the deletion of the hyphen are not sufficient to escape the finding that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM Marks. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant contends that it has numerous registrations of the BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM Marks. ...
2021-04-21 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has registered rights in the ONLYFANS trade mark based on its various trade mark registrations.
...As such, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ONLYFANS trade mark, and accordingly, paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2021-05-19 - 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 is confusingly similar to that trademark for purposes of the Policy. See Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-04-08 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has registered the GILEAD trademark in various jurisdictions around the world, and the ADVANCING ACCESS trademark in the United States. ...A well-established consensus view among UDRP panels is that “a domain name is 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”. ...
2021-03-31 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its ArcelorMittal trademark since it contains the trademark in its entirety and the addition of the letter “s” makes this case an example of typosquatting.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, there are two requirements which the complainant must establish, first that it has rights in a trademark or service mark, and second that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark.
...
2021-03-30 - Case Details
D2020-2492 (finding to be confusingly similar to the ICIC BANK service mark); and Brewin Dolphin Limited v. Global Domain Privacy / Doudou Sow,
WIPO Case No. D2018-0184, (where was held to be confusingly similar to the mark, BREWIN DOLPHIN).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has demonstrated that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2021-03-19 - 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.
...Thus, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SEARA Mark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant.
...
2021-03-12 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant makes the following contentions.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant owns the Trade Mark. The Disputed Domain Names are all identical to the Trade Mark apart from typographical errors.
...However, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s lack of a Response.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2021-04-15 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the ACCELA trademark. ...That in the Panel’s opinion produces a result which is confusingly similar to the trademark, and indeed it is clear that was the Respondent’s intention.
It is also well established that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), in this case “.com”, does not affect the Disputed Domain Name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar. ...
2021-05-25 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has proven ownership of the registered trademarks for KIEHL'S referred to in section 4 above.
...For all of the above-mentioned reasons, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark KIEHL'S in which the Complainant has rights, and therefore the condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) is fulfilled.
...
2021-07-15 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in the CANVA trade mark, based on its various trade mark registrations.
...As such, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CANVA trade mark, and accordingly, paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2021-07-06 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its DALKIA trademark, since it reproduces it entirely and addition of the descriptive element “ltd” in not sufficient to prevent finding of confusing similarity.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, there are two requirements which the Complainant must establish, first that it has rights in a trademark or service mark, and second that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark.
...
2021-08-16 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant says that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its INSTITUTE ESTHEDERM trade mark. The deletion of the non-distinctive term “Institute” and the addition of the country-code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.ir” is insufficient to escape a finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. ...For the purpose of considering whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark, the ccTLD “.ir” is disregarded as this is a technical requirement of registration. ...
2021-08-09 - Case Details