A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant, under the first requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, needs to establish that the
disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark in which it 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...
2023-07-20 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established that it is the owner of the Trademark. The registrations of the Trademark
predate the registration of the Domain Name.
...The generic Top-Level Domain “.com” is a standard registration requirement and does not prevent the
Domain Name from being confusingly similar to the Trademark.
The Panel therefore finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademark.
...
2023-07-19 - Case Details
The Panel will therefore proceed to analyze whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are
satisfied.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant must establish rights in a trademark or service
mark and secondly establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark
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...
2023-07-27 - 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. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-07-12 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant pleads that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered trademark
DECATHLON, since it fully incorporates Complainant’s trademark DECATHLON.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-07-13 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name, which incorporates the entirety of its SANOFI
trademark is confusingly similar to it because addition of a hyphen and the abbreviation “chc” does not
sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the trademark.
...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.
...
2023-07-10 - Case Details
At the top of the Respondent’s website home page there is a OBAGI MEDICAL logo which is confusingly
similar to the mark which is used at the Complainant’s official website “obagi.com”, where it is also placed at
the top of the webpage.
...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. ...
2023-08-22 - 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 MICHELIN mark.
...“[T]he mere registration of a domain name that is identical or
confusingly similar (particularly domain names . . . incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a
famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith.”
...
2023-06-26 - 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 therefore confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademark and that the first ground of the Policy is established.
...
2023-06-06 - Case Details
The third element a complainant must establish
is that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
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.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark and
hence the first element of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...
2023-06-05 - Case Details
Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademark and that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is met.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-05-22 - Case Details
The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name with mere eliminating hyphen and
adding the letter “s” at the end. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for
the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
It is well accepted by UDRP panels that a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), such as “.com”, is typically
ignored when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a 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...
2024-02-08 - Case Details
In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent has registered a domain name which is confusingly
similar to the Complainant’s well-known, intensely used and distinctive trademarks for BORBONE and
CAFFÈ BORBONE. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-02-27 - Case Details
Considering these requirements, the Panel rules as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel holds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks
MÖLNLYCKE. ...The Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark and
the Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2024-09-04 - Case Details
The Panel f inds that this slight change still leaves
the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s service mark.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9 notes that “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 f irst element.” ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-11-06 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-11-06 - Case Details
Therefore, according to Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with Complainant’s
trademark LPL, fulfilling paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy and paragraphs 3(b)(viii) and 3(b)(ix)(1) of the Rules.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-02-29 - Case Details
Therefore, according to Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with Complainant’s
trademark NORMANN COPENHAGEN, fulf illing paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-02-28 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its DEVIN trademark. It
states that the disputed domain name incorporates the DEVIN trademark in full, and that the addition of the
two letters “ai” does not avoid confusion with that trademark.
...The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark DEVIN, but for the addition of the
letters “ai”, which do not prevent the Complainant’s trademark from being recognizable within the disputed
domain name or the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the
Complainant has rights.
...
2024-07-30 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the Complainant’s
trademarks as the disputed domain name includes the Complainant’s IUMAN, INTIMISSIMI UOMO, and
IUMAN INTIMISSIMI UOMO trademarks. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-12-06 - Case Details