Parties’ Contentions
5.1 The Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
5.1.1 The Complainant asserts that the 29 domain names in issue are all confusingly similar to the KAZAA trademark. ...These actions by the Respondent evidence a deliberate strategy of registering domain names confusingly similar to the Complainant’s KAZAA mark.
6.10 Based on the above, the Panel finds that all 29 of the domain names in issue are confusingly similar to the KAZAA mark and, accordingly, the Complaint satisfies the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2005-01-06 - Case Details
The Complainants contend that in light of the above, each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to the Complainants’ mark "easy" and that the manner in which the Respondent intends to use the Domain Names is confusingly similar to the Complainants’ use of its mark.
...Accordingly, they are not identical. Are they confusingly similar?
In the Panel’s view, they are so different from the Complainants’ trade marks/service marks that they cannot be regarded as confusingly similar unless the Complainants’ rights extend to all easy prefixed names.
...
2000-10-18 - Case Details
D2000-0464, the disputed domain name , was found to be confusingly similar to the TOSHIBA trade mark;
- In SANOFI AVENTIS v. ProtectFly.com/RegisterFly.com,
WIPO Case No. ...As such, any use to which the Respondent [was] to put the marks DADDY or GO DADDY or one confusingly similar thereto, in connection with the goods or services provided by the Complainant or those similar thereto, would violate the exclusive rights now residing in the Complainant.”
...
2011-06-17 - Case Details
The more interesting question is whether is "identical or confusingly similar" to Kidman’s mark, as required by the Policy. The Panel emphasizes that, in defining "identical or confusingly similar," it is interpreting that term as it appears in the Policy, rather than as it may appear under the trademark law of a nation. ...A majority of the Panel thus agrees "that a domain name is ‘identical or confusingly similar’ to a trademark . . . when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name." ...
2001-01-30 - Case Details
This is not a dispute involving abusive registration of a domain name or cybersquatting.
1. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant does not have rights to trademarks that may be asserted against Respondent. ...The Policy sets out examples of circumstances that may evidence a respondent's rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, see Policy, paragraph 4(c), as well as circumstances that may evidence a respondent's bad faith registration and use, see Policy, paragraph 4(b).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant must establish that the disputed domain name is either identical or confusingly similar to its marks. ...
2014-08-20 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP, the Complainant must prove that the Domain Name is identical
or confusingly similar to the 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...
2022-05-04 - Case Details
Having considered the Complaint and the available evidence, the Panel finds the following:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry – a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trade mark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trade mark.
...For the purposes of comparing the disputed domain name with the Trade Mark, the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.net” can be disregarded.3 The Complainant’s submission is that “[A] domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark, when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name.” ...
2019-05-17 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant maintains that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its registered ACCELERATED REHABILITATION CENTERS mark, which the Complainant has used in commerce since 1994. ...International Electronic Communications Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy that the disputed
domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ACCELERATED
REHABILITATION CENTERS mark, in which the Complainant clearly has established
rights through registration and use. ...
2006-05-25 - 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 TRADER JOE’S 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...
2023-08-11 - 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 SMITHFIELD mark.
...The Parties
A. Complainant
B. Respondent
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith...
2023-03-10 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(a) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SNCF trademarks, including French Trademark Registration Nos. 05 3 344 303 and 08 3 594 312 and International Trademark Registration Nos. 878 372 and 1001673.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant does have trademark rights in the mark SNCF by virtue of French Trademark Registration Nos. 05 3 344 303 and 08 3 594 312 and International Trademark Registration Nos. 878 372 and 1001673.
...
2011-10-21 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the trademark SWAROVSKI (and related marks). ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the SWAROVSKI mark and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy have been satisfied.
...
2014-11-28 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the trademark SWAROVSKI (and related marks). ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trademarks and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy have been satisfied.
...
2014-12-03 - Case Details
The discussion below will analyze the sufficiency of the Complainant’s allegations and evidence with respect to each requirement.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided sufficient evidence that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to its ANZ BANK mark. ...D2007-0768 (“playboyturkey.com” is confusingly similar to the PLAYBOY trademark in Turkey); America Online, Inc. v. Dolphin@Heart,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-09-26 - Case Details
Walmarket Canada, WIPO
Case No D2000-0150, (domain name ). UDRP panels
considering similar cases where registrants simply added a country name to a
registered trademark have found such domain names to be confusingly similar.
...D2000-0553, where domain names incorporating the AT&T trademark
plus a country or place name were found to be confusingly similar to the AT&T
trademarks; America Online, Inc. v. Dolphin@Heart, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0713, where domain names were confusingly similar
because the “addition of a place name generally does not alter the underlying
mark to which it is added.” ...
2005-06-02 - Case Details
The Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith (Paragraph 4(a)(iii)).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There are two requirements that a complainant must establish under this paragraph; that it has rights in a trade or service mark, and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark.
...Hence the Panel concludes that the domain name is, for the purposes of the Policy, confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks.
The Complainant has therefore shown that it has the appropriate rights in a trademark, and that the domain name is confusingly similar to this mark. ...
2008-02-18 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel finds the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark and so decides that the Complainant has satisfied this first element of the Policy.”
...D2000-0664
(finding to be confusingly similar to the PRICE CLUB
mark).
Therefore, in accordance with previous panel decisions, the Panel concludes that the Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CIALIS mark in which the Complainant has rights.”
...
2006-03-17 - Case Details
In regards to the disputed domain name , the Panel finds the disputed domain name is
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark LACTALIS and the addition of the term “app” is not
sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark
LACTALIS. ...Under these circumstances, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to
the Complainant’s mark and the first element of the policy is therefore demonstrated.
...
2023-11-02 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant does have registered trademark rights in the mark WALTER KIDDE AEROSPACE by virtue of its United States Trademark Registration No. 2,108,140, which was registered in 1997.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark WALTER KIDDE AEROSPACE, as the domain name replicates two principal elements of the registered mark. ...
2018-06-01 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
At the time the Complainant was filed, the Complainant owned a Canadian trademark application for the mark WAGJAG (Serial No. 1,502,323), and common law rights in the WAGJAG trademark since December 20, 2009. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant does have trademark rights in the mark WAGJAG by virtue of Canadian trademark application (Serial No. 1,502,323) and the common law rights dating back to December 20, 2009. ...
2011-09-19 - Case Details