Complainant
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) shall not be taken into account when comparing the disputed domain name and 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.
...
2021-08-04 - 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. ...See WIPO Overview 3.0, at section 1.9 (“A domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element.”); see also Express Scripts, Inc. v. ...
2021-06-08 - Case Details
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.
...According to section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, the applicable Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) in a domain name (e.g., “.com”, “.club”, “.nyc”, or as in this case “.org”) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is generally disregarded under the first element confusingly similar test.
In view of the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and that requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2021-07-21 - Case Details
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. ...It has also been established by prior UDRP panels that incorporating a trademark in its entirety into a domain name can be sufficient to establish that the domain name is confusingly similar to a registered trademark. Numerous UDRP panels have recognised that 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 registered mark. ...
2021-09-20 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has proved that it has rights in the trademark ELECTROLUX.
...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the Complainant’s ELECTROLUX trademark and that the conditions of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy have been fulfilled.
...
2021-10-29 - 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 MICHELIN trademark in which the Complainant has rights and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are fulfilled.
...
2021-08-31 - Case Details
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. ...It has also been established by prior UDRP panels that incorporating a trademark in its entirety into a domain name can be sufficient to establish that the domain name is confusingly similar to a registered trademark. Numerous UDRP panels have recognised that 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 registered mark. ...
2021-11-16 - Case Details
It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, where appropriate, will decide consistent with the consensus views captured therein.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy it should be established that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the complainant has rights.
...As decided in previous UDRP decisions, the practice of typosquatting creates domain names that are confusingly similar to a relevant trademark, as has occurred in this case. See section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.
...
2021-11-30 - Case Details
As long established by previous UDRP panels, this may be sufficient to determine that a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
The addition of the French possessive adjective “ma”, meaning “my” in English, and the use of a dash between “ma” and the Complainant’s trademark does not prevent the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
...Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
The Panel finds that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is met.
...
2021-11-24 - Case Details
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.
...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
In the absence of an objection by the Respondent, the
Panel does not find it procedurally efficient to have the Complainant translate the Complaint into Chinese.
6.2 Substantive Issues
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.
...To this end, prior UDRP panels have established that attracting Internet traffic, for commercial
gain, by using a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark may be
evidence of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP. ...
2023-01-13 - Case Details
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 Panel finds that the
disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s TIK TOK marks. The Respondent’s
incorporation of the Complainant’s mark in full in the disputed domain name is evidence that the disputed
domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks. ...
2023-02-10 - Case Details
Michael Robertson,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0009).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel agrees with Complainant’s allegation that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s CARTER BANK & TRUST mark.
...WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel
Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7 (“where at least a
dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be
considered confusingly similar to that mark”).
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
...
2023-02-07 - Case Details
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.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and
that requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2023-04-13 - 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 must have known about the Complainant’s rights in the trademark ACCURIST when she registered a confusingly similar domain name; (ii) the Respondent registered and is using a confusingly similar domain name which reverts to a website which provides links to websites of direct competitors of the Complainant, and to pornographic sites and material for purposes of monetary gain; and (iii) the Respondent registered and is using a confusingly similar domain name in an attempt to interfere with the Complainant’s business and to divert Internet users, who are looking for the Complainant’s website to the Respondent’s website.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant does have trademark rights in the mark ACCURIST by virtue of United Kingdom Registration Nos. 617719 and 148757, and CTM Registration No. 71159, and by the other registrations listed in the Complaint.
...
2011-10-06 - Case Details
The Complainant argues that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to its marks because each of the Domain Names incorporates, in its entirety, the FITFLOP Mark. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, 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. ...
2011-05-10 - Case Details
c) That the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Two separate issues fall for consideration; (1) Does Complainant have rights in the mark and (2) is the disputed domain name identical or confusingly similar to any such mark. ...The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its mark for the following reasons:
(a) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.
...
2011-05-09 - Case Details
D2008-0853 (finding to be confusingly similar to the AIR FRANCE mark); Société Air France v. Ahmetovnuri, Ahmet Nuri,
WIPO Case No. ...MustNeed.com, NAF Claim No. FA257901 (finding to be confusingly similar to the AMEX mark.).
In the Panel’s opinion, the Complainant has proved that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2011-08-01 - Case Details
Complainant
(1) Respondent’s Domain Name is Confusingly Similar to Complainant’s Mark
Complainant submits that Respondent’s Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WALMART trademark in violation of the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). ...Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel must determine whether the Domain Name is “identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights” in accordance with paragraph (4)(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2011-07-25 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.3 This Panel without any hesitation finds that the disputed Domain Name namely, is confusingly similar to the well known GOOGLE trademark owned exclusively by the Complainant. ...D2003-0696 where the domain names and were held to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark PEPSI. Just as in this case the disputed domain names incorporated wholly and entirely the complainant’s trademark.
6.5 Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has successfully established the disputed Domain Name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s GOOGLE trademark in accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP.
...
2011-08-23 - Case Details