Further, the Complainant has a wide range of registered trade mark rights in the words “LA ROCHE-POSAY”.
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the LA ROCHE-POSAY trade mark. Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark for purposes of the Policy, “when the domain name includes the trade mark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark and, therefore, the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...
2013-01-23 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends, in relevant part, as follows:
- The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the GRAINGER Trademark because Respondent “initially attracts searchers by using a confusingly similar copy of Complainant’s Marks which only adds an additional word ‘safety’, thereby making internet users think that the domain will lead to one of the Complainant’s legitimate sites. ...Policy, paragraph 4(a).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based upon the trademark registrations cited by Complainant, it is apparent that Complainant has rights in and to the GRAINGER Trademark.
...
2011-12-29 - Case Details
For these reasons, the Panel finds that those names are confusingly similar to that mark. See, Two Men and a Truck / International, Inc. v. Jason Rager / Paydues Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1312 (finding that is confusingly similar to the TWO MEN AND A TRUCK mark.); The Gillette Company v. RFK Associates, NAF Claim No. ...
2012-04-17 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts, first, that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the CANADIAN TIRE trade marks as it consists of the words “Canadian”, “tire” and “Mastercard”. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established it has rights to the CANADIAN TIRE trade marks. The next question to be considered is whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CANADIAN TIRE trade mark. ...
2012-07-18 - Case Details
A Complaint may only be granted if the above criteria are met simultaneously.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has proved to the Panel’s satisfaction that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the name and trademark of the Complainant.
...This strongly suggests that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the mark LEGO.
The Panel therefore finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark LEGO and as a consequence, the Complaint brought by the Complainant meets the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2012-06-14 - Case Details
Consequently, the Panel must proceed with an assessment of the Complaint on its merits.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name consists of the misspelled word “huyndai”, and “card” plus the descriptive gTLD suffix “.com”. ...The Respondent thus appears to have registered the confusingly similar domain name, utilizing typo-squatting, with the intention of taking advantage of the goodwill and fame established by the Complainant in the Mark. ...
2012-07-06 - Case Details
A domain name containing a common or obvious misspelling of a trademark as its principal component is normally found to be confusingly similar to the trademark. See Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc. v. LaPorte Holdings,
WIPO Case No. ...The Respondent thus appears to have registered the confusingly similar domain name, utilizing typo-squatting, with the intention of taking advantage of the goodwill and fame established by the Complainant in the Mark. ...
2012-07-06 - Case Details
c) That the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its mark for the following reasons:
(a) The dominant portion of the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark LEGO.
...c) The disputed domain name adds a non-distinctive prefix and is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel accepts the Complainant’s contentions and finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. ...
2012-07-05 - 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.
...D2004-0117 (a domain name incorporating a well known trademark combined with a geographically descriptive term is confusingly similar to the trademark); Inter-IKEA Systems B.V. v. Hoon Huh,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0438 (the addition of the term “korea” in does not prevent the domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark).
...
2014-02-18 - Case Details
The Panel also finds that the disputed domain name is either identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s LUCIFER mark. The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s entire registered trademark. ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. Accordingly, the Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
...
2013-06-05 - Case Details
The Panel will therefore ignore then in rendering its decision.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
...D2001-0778 (October 1, 2001) ( was found confusingly similar to the PLAYBOY mark); Adaptive Molecular Technologies, Inc. v. Piscilla Woodward S Charles R Thorton, d/b/a Machines & More,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-11-06 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met:
(i) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to trade marks in which the Complainant has rights.
...The Complainant asserts that the Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s JIMMY CHOO trade mark in its entirety which is sufficient to establish that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark. The addition of the word “shoes” to the Complainant’s marks does not prevent the Domain Name from being confusingly similar to the trade mark JIMMY CHOO.
...
2011-02-01 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met:
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to trade marks in which the Complainant has rights.
...The Complainant asserts that the Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s JIMMY CHOO trade mark in its entirety which is sufficient to establish that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark. The addition of the word “outlet” and “uk” to the Complainant’s mark does not prevent the Domain Name from being confusingly similar to the mark JIMMY CHOO.
...
2011-02-02 - Case Details
Complainants
The Complainants argue that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the RAPID SHARE trademark, owned by the Complainants, seeing that it incorporates the trademark as a whole.
...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainants to show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainants have rights.
...
2010-06-09 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant states that disputed domain name of the Respondent is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark VALIUM seeing that it incorporates this trademark in its entirety. ...Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the burden of proving that all three elements are present lies with the Complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant states that disputed domain name of the Respondent is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark VALIUM seeing that it incorporates this trademark in its entirety and that the addition of the terms “no prescription needed” does not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the trademark VALIUM. ...
2010-06-24 - Case Details
Complainants
The Complainants argue that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the RAPID SHARE trademark, owned by the Complainants, seeing that it incorporates the trademark as a whole.
...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants' contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainants to show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainants have rights.
...
2010-06-18 - Case Details
The Complainant argues the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith to exploit a confusingly similar variant of its mark for generating web traffic to a website that contains sponsored links. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element requires the Complainant to prove that the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which it has rights.
...
2010-06-14 - Case Details
With regard to the merits of the case, according to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the following three elements is present:
– the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (Identical or Confusingly Similar);
– the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (Rights or Legitimate Interests);
– the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith (Registered and Used in Bad Faith).
...The core part of the disputed domain name is identical with or confusingly similar to the above trademarks, and the word “global” is just a common or generic term.
According to previous UDRP decisions, panels have considered that the incorporation of trademarks in their entirety is in general sufficient to establish that the disputed domain names were identical or confusingly similar to the complainant's registered trademarks. ...
2010-06-28 - Case Details
Matthew Smith,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0540.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element requires consideration of two issues: (1) whether Complainant has rights in a trademark; and (2) whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to such trademark.
...This leaves the question of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered trademark.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark, because the disputed domain name consists of the entirety of Complainant’s trademark, differing only in the omission of the letter “i”, along with the gTLD “.com”. ...
2013-11-14 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s DARK & LOVELY Mark in its entirety, adding only the “.com” generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix, and changing only the ampersand in Complainant’s Mark to the word “and”.
...It is well established that the inclusion of the gTLD, here “.com,” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark. See Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady,
WIPO Case No. ...
2014-03-24 - Case Details