As a result, the Panel decides that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s service mark for purposes of Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). See, Guitay Louis Paul v. ...Staple.com,
WIPO Case No. D2003-1028 (finding to be confusingly similar to the STAPLES trademark).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has succeeded in showing that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2020-03-11 - Case Details
As a result, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s service mark for the purposes of Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). See, Skyscanner Limited v. ...D2019-2851 (finding to be confusingly similar to the SKYSCANNER mark); and Joanne Rowling v. Alvaro Collazo,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0787 (finding to be confusingly similar to the J K ROWLING mark).
...
2020-03-11 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the OANDA trademark. Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that domain names are 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” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2021-09-22 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold inquiry, a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
...Thus, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ENEL Mark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant.
...
2021-08-31 - 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. ...The Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark is suggestive of bad faith registration and use. ...
2022-01-10 - 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. ...It is well established that a domain name that wholly incorporates a trademark may be confusingly similar to that trademark for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of another term or terms. ...
2022-01-06 - Case Details
The Panel finds that that minor difference certainly fails to negate a finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks. See, Amegy Bank National Association v. Contact Privacy Inc. / ICS INC.,
WIPO Case No. D2012-2018 (where the domain name, , was found to be confusingly similar to both the AMEGY BANK and AMERGYBANK marks); Migros-Genossenschafts-Bund v. ubgm,
WIPO Case No. ...
2013-04-12 - Case Details
D2000-0429 in which the panel found that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
The question of confusing similarity lies at the very heart of trademark conflicts, where the test may typically be whether the names are phonetically, visually, or conceptually similar. The same thinking is carried over into decisions under the Policy because the words “identical or confusingly similar” appear in paragraph 4(a)(i) thereof.
The comparison in the present case is between the trademark TUMBLR and the word ‘tumlr’. ...
2013-04-10 - Case Details
The disputed domain name immediately conveys the false and misleading impression that the disputed domain name identifies a Complainant web address, and it is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MAYAN formative service marks as the result. The Panel may conclude that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name in this proceeding, , contains the identical MAYAN1 word in MAYAN MARKS, by which it was added the wording “members”. ...
2015-07-06 - Case Details
iii) That the domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to its mark for the following reasons;
a) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the dominant portion of the Complainant’s mark NET-A-PORTER.
...The Panel accepts the Complainant's contentions. The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark. The Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
...
2013-06-04 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element, the Complainant must have trademark rights and the Disputed Domain Name must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.
...It is well established that a domain name is confusingly similar to a mark "when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation." ...
2015-12-15 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold inquiry: a threshold investigation into whether a
complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. ...First, the registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a trademark by an entity that has no
relationship to that mark may be sufficient evidence of opportunistic bad faith. ...
2023-01-23 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(i) Identical or confusingly similar
Complainant states that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its distinctive
trademark BOURSO. ...In conclusion, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which
Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...
2023-02-06 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has submitted detailed evidence that it is the owner of numerous trademarks for the term LUMENPULSE.
...Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that domain names are 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” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2016-09-21 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark:
- it incorporates the Complainant's trademark VALIUM in its entirety...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the VALIUM mark for the purposes of the Policy and thus paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been established.
...
2017-03-15 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has submitted detailed evidence that it is the owner of the registered trademark AMAZON (the "AMAZON" trademark).
...Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that domain names are 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" (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2017-04-26 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark or trademarks 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).
...
2017-05-10 - Case Details
Policy, paragraph 4(a).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based upon the trademark registration cited by Complainant, it is apparent that Complainant has rights in and to the BISSELL Trademark.
...In any event, while Respondent may generally be free to publish an advertorial or splog website, using a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BISSELL Trademark to do so is unnecessary and inappropriate and only serves to cause confusion. ...
2018-04-10 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the SERVFACES trademark. The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to this trademark. ...Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that domain names are 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” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2019-08-12 - 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.
...D2003-0584 (finding that was confusingly similar to DELOITTE & TOUCHE). Based on the above, the Panel concludes that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the KLEINER PERKINS Mark.
...
2019-05-17 - Case Details