A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant does have registered trademark rights in the mark VIRGIN by virtue of its many Trademark Registrations; Including the following:
U.S. ...The Panel finds that the registration and use of a confusingly similar trademark in this manner is not evidence of a bona fide offering of goods and services.
...
2012-12-21 - Case Details
Other panels follow the objective test, which holds
that a domain name which includes the mark or a confusingly similar approximation
thereof is confusingly similar, regardless of the other terms in the domain
name. ...It is the Panel’s view that the better view is the application of the objective test and if a domain name includes the registered mark within the domain name, then the domain name at issue is confusingly similar to the registered mark. In the present case, a confusingly similar approximation of the mark FLIRT4FREE is contained in the domain name at issue, and the Panel finds that the domain name at issue is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
...
2004-06-14 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
i. Domain Name Identical or Confusingly Similar to Complainant’s Mark
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. ...D2001-0110 (finding confusingly similar
to the trademark ANSELL for condoms).
Accordingly, the Administrative Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
...
2007-04-11 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant does have trademark rights in the mark CAISSE D’EPARGNE by virtue of Community Trademark Registration No. 637, 504 and French Registration No. 1,658,134.
...The Panel finds that the Respondent was most likely aware of the Complainant’s trademark rights when it registered a confusingly similar domain name, and when it began operating a website in connection with that confusingly similar domain name which provides links to other websites operated by direct competitors of the Complainant. ...
2011-06-03 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
(a) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark DEFEVER, which is the subject of U.S. trademark registration No. 1,736,394.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights in the trademark DEFEVER by virtue of its U.S. trademark registration No. 1,736,394.
...
2009-06-30 - Case Details
The slight misspelling or modification of a well-known trade mark does not alter the fact that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered trade mark of the Complainant.
Previous cases under the UDRP have shown that where the registration of the domain name constitutes typosquatting, the disputed domain name is, by definition, to be regarded as confusingly similar. ...Advanced Chemill Systems,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0827.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is required under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy to prove that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2009-12-14 - Case Details
The Panel will therefore deal with each of these requirements in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds, first, that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Uruguayan trademark BARCELO CLUB DEL LAGO. ...Thus, the domain name has been held to be confusingly similar to the trademark HILTON: Hilton International Co. v. Elliot Centeno,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0826; the domain name has been held to be confusingly similar to the trademark MARRIOTT: Marriott Int’l v. ...
2007-06-18 - Case Details
page 4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-12-02 - Case Details
D2009-1253, the disputed domain name was found to be confusingly similar to the DR. MARTENS trade mark
- In NIKE, Inc v. Bestinfo,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0543, the disputed domain name was found to be confusingly similar to the NIKE trade mark
- In Hugo Boss A.G. v. ...D2010-0650, the disputed domain names , were found to be confusingly similar to the ECCO trade mark
The Panel agrees with the above decisions and concludes that the addition of the “chaussure” in the disputed domain name will not prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s FEIYUE trade mark.
...
2010-11-05 - Case Details
AAIM,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0403.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant must establish rights in a trademark and secondly that the disputed domain name is identical to or confusingly similar to the trademark in which Complainant has rights.
...D2003-0696 (a domain name is “nearly identical or confusingly similar” to a complainant’s mark when it “fully incorporate[s] said mark”; holding , , and other domain names confusingly similar to the complainant’s PEPSI mark); and Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. v. ...
2011-08-16 - Case Details
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain names are substantially and confusingly similar to the AAA trademarks. A domain name is confusingly similar to a mark when the name includes the entire mark even if one or more generic terms are added. ...Advanced Chemill Systems,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0827.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is required under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy to prove that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2010-05-27 - Case Details
Complainant submits that Respondent’s domain name
is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark SKILLLSONE. Respondent
has merely replaced the term “One” with the numeral “1”.
...D2000-0403 (June 27, 2000)
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy the Complainant must establish rights in a trademark and secondly that the domain name in dispute is confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2006-04-14 - Case Details
As noted by the Complainant, previous panels have
consistently held that selling competing goods, coupled with the unauthorized use of a complainant’s
trademarks in a confusingly similar domain name, does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or
services under paragraph 6(c)(iii) of the Policy. ...The Respondent, by registering a domain name that incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety
combined with the term “gas”, which relates to the Complainant’s industry, has intentionally created a
domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, as well as to its own
and domain names. ...
2023-08-30 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant alleges that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its COSTCO trademark.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complaint’s trademark COSTCO. ...
2019-02-04 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant's contentions can be summarized as follows:
1) Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant alleges that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark TETRA PAK since consumers will mistake the Disputed Domain Name with the said trademark. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark TETRA PAK. ...
2018-09-04 - Case Details
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 ULTIUS Trademark.
...D2015-0899 (finding confusingly similar to ACCENTURE); and Research In Motion Limited v. Nigel Hull,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1126 (finding confusingly similar to BLACKBERRY).
...
2018-07-03 - Case Details
Thus, the Panel concludes 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. ...It asked, amongst other questions:
Is a domain name consisting of a trademark and a negative term confusingly similar to the complainant's trademark? ("sucks cases")
Majority view: A domain name consisting of a trademark and a negative term is confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark. ...
2008-04-21 - Case Details
The onus of proving these elements is on the Complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the owner of registered trade marks for RAPIDSHARE and RAPID SHARE. ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is not identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. The Panel agrees that “rapid” is a common dictionary word. ...
2010-09-15 - Case Details
In particular, the Complainant asserts that:
(1) the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its ARCELORMITTAL trademark in which the
Complainant has rights. The addition of the letter “x” and the deletion of the letter “r” is not sufficient to
escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark ARCELORMITTAL...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-09-28 - Case Details
Therefore, the Domain Name could be considered virtually identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. ...D2001-0110, stating “The incorporation of a Complainant’s well-known trademark in the registered Domain Name is considered sufficient to find the Domain Name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark”.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first requirement that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademarks, under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2022-01-27 - Case Details