Identity or Confusing Similarity
Complainant further contends that the Disputed Domain Names are identical with or confusingly similar to the trademark pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the AMBIEN mark, pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, because they wholly incorporate the term AMBIEN with the addition of the descriptive terms “generic” and “sleepingpill.”
Respondent has not contested the assertions by Complaint that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the trademark.
As numerous courts and prior UDRP panels have recognized, the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant's registered mark. ...
2008-09-08 - Case Details
The Domain Name is confusingly similar because it incorporates the ROCKEFELLER and ROCKEFELLER FINANCIAL marks in their entirety, replacing only the first “E” in ROCKEFELLER with the letter “Y”. ...Panelists have consistently held that the mere addition of descriptive wording to well-known marks, or confusingly similar derivatives thereof, does not avert a finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar. ...
2012-01-04 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Two separate issues fall for consideration. (1) Does the Complainant have rights in the marks and is the disputed domain name identical or confusingly similar to any such marks? ...c) The disputed domain name incorporates a non-distinctive word and is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel accepts the Complainant’s contentions. The disputed name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. ...
2011-11-17 - Case Details
That said, the Panel finds that this is a clear case of domain name abuse as shown herein.
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 trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the trademark and the disputed domain name are identical or confusingly similar.
...The Panel has already found the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The Panel finds that the likelihood of confusion as to source is therefore highly likely.
...
2011-02-24 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In light of the evidence submitted by the Complainant (Annex D) that it owns valid USPTO registrations for the GEICO service mark, the Panel concludes that the Complainant possesses sufficient rights in that mark to satisfy Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). ...D2010-2164 (finding the disputed domain name, to be confusingly similar to the ALLSTATE mark.); Accor v. Maixueying Jokemine,
WIPO Case No. D2010-2233 (finding confusingly similar to the ACCOR mark and opining, “Considering that the Complainant operates in the hotel business, the Panel concludes that the addition of the term ‘hotel’ even heightens the similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark.”); and Isleworth Land Company v. ...
2012-03-07 - Case Details
Complainant alleges that the domain name in question is confusingly similar to the ROSS-SIMONS mark and the current registrant, the Respondent, has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.
...Complainant’s Proof
(i) Domain Name Identical or Confusingly Similar to Trademark
Complainant has proved that it is the owner of the rights in trademark ROSS-SIMONS. ...
2004-10-18 - Case Details
It is an understatement
to declare that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark. See
Expedia, Inc. v. Seocho, WIPO Case No.
D2002-0288 (finding “expecia”is confusingly similar to “expedia”).
...Rights or Legitimate Interests
Even though a domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark, a respondent may nevertheless use the domain name if the respondent has “rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.” ...
2006-03-16 - Case Details
Policy, paragraph 4(a).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based upon the registrations cited by Complainant, the Panel is convinced that Complainant has rights in the mark MIRAVAL. ...D2000-0937 (finding the
domain name confusingly similar to the mark ALTAVISTA,
without the need for discussion). Furthermore, a recent panel in a case involving
the same Complainant as in this case found the domain name
confusingly similar to the mark MIRAVAL. ...
2006-03-30 - Case Details
D2000-0716
(finding that deleting the letter “s” from Complainant’s Universal
City Studio’s store mark did not change the overall impression of the
mark and thus made the disputed domain name confusingly similar to it).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the mark in which Complainant has rights.
...Respondent has offered no justification for registering the confusingly similar or identical disputed domain names immediately after learning of Complainant’s intentions. ...
2004-07-27 - Case Details
It is generally regarded as prima facie evidence of no rights or legitimate interests if a complainant shows that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark, that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and that a complainant has not authorized the respondent to use its mark (or an expression which is confusingly similar to its mark), whether in the disputed domain name or otherwise. ...Based on this evidence, the Panel finds that it is implausible to believe that Respondent was not aware of the SANOFI Mark when it registered its confusingly similar disputed domain name. Registration of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s well-known trademark suggests opportunistic bad faith. ...
2020-09-21 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have consistently held 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” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-04-22 - Case Details
Complainant
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The disputed
domain name incorporates the entirety of the Complainant’s 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...
2022-04-19 - Case Details
Moreover, prior UDRP panel decisions have suggested that the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety may be sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered mark. AT&T Corp. v. William Gormally,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0758 (finding confusingly similar to ATT). ...Jonathan Valicenti,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0037 (finding confusingly similar to LANTUS). Also, the addition of the prefix “1” to the mark should not be recognized as a distinguishable element. ...
2013-06-25 - Case Details
Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, because (i) Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s registered trademark rights in JENNY CRAIG, when the Respondent registered the confusingly similar domain name; (ii) Respondent registered and is using a confusingly similar domain name to interfere with the commercial business of the Complainant; and (iii) Respondent attempted to sell the confusingly similar domain name for more than Respondent’s out-of-pocket expenses.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant does have registered trademark rights in the mark JENNY CRAIG by virtue of its Trademark Registrations, including the following:
U.S. ...
2013-06-04 - Case Details
The Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant’s RIESS trade mark are visually, phonetically and conceptually confusingly similar.
(c) The Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use any of its RIESS trade marks. ...Such amendments add no distinctive element and remain confusingly similar to the Complainant's RIESS mark, both visually and phonetically. The Panel therefore finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark.
...
2015-12-29 - Case Details
The Panel is of the opinion that when comparing CALVIN KLEIN with “calvinkelin” these signs are confusingly similar. When assessing whether or not the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights according to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar if the trademark is recognizable in the disputed domain name. Seen as a whole the term “calvinkelin” is a mere misspelling of the Complainant’s mark and confusingly similar to the trademark CALVIN KLEIN. The Panel is of the opinion that for these reasons the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant. ...
2016-10-25 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has established registered rights in its DISCOVER trademark.
The Panel also accepts that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark DISCOVER, in which the Complainant has rights. It is well established that the addition of the gTLD “.com” does not avoid a finding that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar or identical to the Complainant’s trademark. ...
2019-05-02 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(a) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainants contend that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainants’ registered trademark FUENTE and the Complainants’ common law trade name FUENTE CIGAR, in that it replicates the Complainants’ trademark and trade name in its entirety. ...The Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to the registered FUENTE trademark, as it incorporates the Complainants’ mark in its entirety. ...
2007-09-19 - Case Details
The Panel finds that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark rights when it registered the confusingly similar domain names, and when it began operating a website in connection with those confusingly similar domain names which provide links to other websites operated by direct competitors of the Complainant. The Panel finds that the use of confusingly similar domain names in association with a website that provides links to a Complainant’s competitors’ websites for the purposes of monetary gain to be evidence of bad faith under the Policy.
...
2011-06-09 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy Complainant must show that the disputed domain name is “identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights”.
...D2000-1809 ( and confusingly similar to Complainant's mark); Chanel, Inc. v. IGGI Networks, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1831 ( confusingly similar to Complainant's mark). ...
2010-04-23 - Case Details