A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has identified a portfolio of registered trademarks of which the primary element is SENATOR combined with variations of the word “hotel”. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks. Accordingly, Complainant has satisfied the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2019-04-12 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated rights through registration and use on the IQOS mark.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar with the IQOS trademark of Complainant.
...The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the IQOS trademark of Complainant.
Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2019-01-09 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated rights through registration and use on the IQOS mark.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar with the IQOS trademark of Complainant.
...The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the IQOS trademark of Complainant.
Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2019-01-09 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated rights through registration and use on the HEETS mark.
...The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the IQOS trademark of Complainant.
Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2019-01-08 - Case Details
The Complainant states that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, noting that the addition of the terms “sex-” and “adults” does not negate the confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the Complainant’s trademark. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must first establish that it has rights in a trademark. ...
2019-01-07 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated rights through registration and use of the BMW mark.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar with the BMW trademark of Complainant.
...The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the BMW trademark of Complainant.
Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2019-02-15 - Case Details
The said three elements are considered below.
1. Identical or Confusingly Similar
On the evidence available, the Panel has no hesitation in finding that the Complainant has rights in the trademark CHIC by reason of its trademark registrations as recited in Section 4 above.
...It is well-established practice to disregard the gTLD part of a domain name, such as “.com”, when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark in issue. Société Anonyme des Eaux Minerales d’Evian and Societe des Eaux de Volvic v. ...
2019-02-11 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complaint is based on an allegation of common law rights in the trademark FE NXT and not on the Complainant’s trademark registration for FINANCIAL EDGE NXT for the purposes of the assessment of the first element. ...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant has satisfied the first element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2019-03-25 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant provided more than enough evidences that it has the established rights in the LEGO Trademark on the base of great number of trademark registrations worldwide, almost in all jurisdictions. ...In view of foregoing, the Panel concludes that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the LEGO Trademark in which the Complainant has rights. Consequently, the Panel considers the Complainant satisfied the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2018-12-28 - Case Details
In these circumstances the Panel determines that English will be the language of the proceeding.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark BAYER in its entirety. In cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, it is the view of UDRP panels that the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing. See section 1.7 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Overview 3.0); see also, Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. bmwcar.com,
WIPO Case No. ...
2019-02-04 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that:
1) The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s LIBTAYO and LIBTAYO SURROUND (figurative) trademarks. The trademarks are highly distinctive and are wholly incorporated in the Disputed Domain Name. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence, the Panel accepts that the Complainant owns rights in the LIBTAYO and LIBTAYO SURROUND (figurative) trademarks due to their registrations worldwide.
...
2019-02-01 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant relies on its TORRES registered trademarks and its longstanding use of the TORRES mark to establish rights in the TORRES trademark. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant contends as set out above that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. ...
2019-01-24 - Case Details
That by registering the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks FIDELITY, and by using the website to which it resolves to sell competing goods and services, the Respondent demonstrated its knowledge of and familiarity with the Complainant’s brands and business.
...D2002-0487).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s FIDELITY trademarks because it incorporates them in their entirety.
...
2018-01-11 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s famous and registered mark THYSSENKRUPP because it contains the Complainant’s mark in its entirety.
...Upon considering the above, the Panel determines that English be the language of the proceeding.
6.2. Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2018-01-09 - Case Details
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules directs the Panel to decide the complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element that the Complainant must establish is that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark rights.
There are two parts to this inquiry: the Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark and, if so, the disputed domain name must be shown to be identical or confusingly similar to the trademark.
The Complainant has proven the registered trademark referred to in Section 4 above. ...
2018-01-08 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. The disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant's trademark in its entirety with the addition of "chinhhang". ...The Panel finds on the evidence that the disputed domain name is intended to mean literally "michelin genuine" and is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark MICHELIN. The Panel finds for the Complainant under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2018-01-04 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided details of its STULZ trademarks, as set out above, and thereby established that it has rights in STULZ.
In considering whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademarks, it is established that the applicable generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix (that is “.pro” in the case of the disputed domain name) should be disregarded, as it is a technical requirement of registration.
...
2018-03-26 - Case Details
The Complainant asserts that it is entitled to protection with the right to prevent any use of the ROYAL UNIBREW trademark or a confusingly similar representation of it in connection with any products or services.
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name creates a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark due to an aural, visual and conceptual similarity between each other.
...For all these reasons, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks ROYAL UNIBREW and ROYAL UNIBREW A/S according to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2018-03-19 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show 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 to the Complainant’s AIR FRANCE trademarks. The condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has therefore been satisfied.
...
2018-03-14 - Case Details
Complainant
Firstly, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the EPSON mark as it contains this mark in its entirety with addition of the word “Russia” preceded by hyphen. ...The requested remedy may only be granted if the above criteria are met.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
For the purpose of assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, the Top-Level Domain suffix “.com” may be disregarded (LEGO Juris A/S v. ...
2018-05-01 - Case Details