Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or at least confusingly similar to its trademark MAYBELLINE and that the Domain Name reproduces its trademark in its entirety with the adjunction of the ccTLD <.tv>. ...It is equally clear that Complainant has protectable rights in the MAYBELLINE trademark and that the Domain Name is either identical or confusingly similar to the said trademark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the ground is made out.
B. ...
2011-02-28 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainants to prove that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which they have rights.
...Regarding the question whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainants have rights, the Panel answers this question affirmatively. ...
2011-04-07 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its WESTERN UNION trade mark.
The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.
...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Registering a domain name confusingly similar to a trade mark of another, with knowledge of the trade mark owner's rights, without justification and for no reason other than to punish the trade mark owner is on its face abusive. ...
2010-07-19 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that the evidence is that the Respondent (1) has adopted a confusingly similar domain name, (2) has used the trademark of the Complainant’s website, and (3) it has sought to attract users to its site by creating confusion between its site and the Complainant’s. ...A Identical or Confusingly Similar
This Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s widely known BBVA CONTINENTAL trademark. ...
2011-01-07 - Case Details
For all of these reasons, the disputed domain name is not confusingly similar to the Trade Marks.
The Respondent is using the disputed domain name legitimately, in respect of the Website which provides paid links to third party websites. ...UDRP panels have consistently held that domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trade mark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2010-12-20 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided evidence of ownership of several trademark registrations for WELLINGTON MANAGEMENT, such as the Community Trademark Registration No. 8544819, registered on February 17, 2010, in class 36; the U.S. ...In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2010-10-15 - Case Details
International Electronic Communications Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s FIFA mark, in which the Complainant has established rights through registration and use in commerce. ...When the relevant trademark is recognizable in the disputed domain name, the domain name normally will be considered confusingly similar to the mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
3 Id.
4 See WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.11....
2020-11-20 - Case Details
For the above reasons, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHEWY Marks, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, and the disputed domain name was registered or used in bad faith, in violation of .UA Policy (4)(a).
...Given the many similarities between the terms of the .UA Policy and the terms of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”), the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, where appropriate, will decide consistent with the consensus views captured therein.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the .UA Policy it should be established that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the complainant has rights.
...
2020-05-14 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights over the trademark TIK TOK based on the trademark registrations cited under section 4 above and the related trademark certificates submitted as annex 1 to the Complaint.
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has established rights according to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2021-08-16 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence presented, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the FIRST EGG BANK figurative trademark.
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are 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.
...
2021-09-20 - Case Details
Having considered the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules, the Supplemental Rules, and applicable principles of law, the Panel’s findings on each of the above cited elements are as follows.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires Complainant show that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s OSRAM trademark in which Complainant has valid trademark rights. Therefore, Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2021-03-23 - Case Details
International Electronic Communications Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s FIFA mark, in which the Complainant has established rights through registration and use in commerce. ...When the relevant trademark is recognizable in the disputed domain name, the domain name normally will be considered confusingly similar to the mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
3 Id.
4 See WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.11....
2020-11-17 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s IQOS Trademark. The Disputed Domain Name is linked to an online shop allegedly offering repair and maintenance services for the Complainant’s IQOS System. ...Moreover, according to section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark the domain name will normally be considered identical or confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing.
In light of the above, the Panel concludes that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s IQOS Trademark and respectively, the Complainant has satisfied the first element of the Policy.
...
2020-12-21 - Case Details
International Electronic Communications Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MARLBORO mark, in which the Complainant has established rights through registration and long and extensive use in commerce. ...When the relevant trademark is recognizable in the disputed domain name, the domain name normally will be considered confusingly similar to the mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
3 Id.
4 See WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.11 ....
2020-10-29 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established trademark rights in the term ACCENTURE which has been registered by trademark offices of many countries of the world.
The disputed domain name is also confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark. The Complainant ACCENTURE trademark and the disputed domain name have the same number of letters. ...
2020-09-09 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has UDRP-relevant rights in its registered trademark FXDD as set out in the factual background section above. ...In all of these circumstances, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights and that the Complainant has established the first element under the Policy.
...
2020-08-31 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MARLBORO mark. The Complainant remarks that MARLBORO is a well-known and famous mark. ...International Electronic Communications Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MARLBORO mark, in which the Complainant has established rights through registration and long and extensive use in commerce. ...
2020-10-16 - Case Details
See section 4.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered identical or confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of the Policy. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainants’ mark FUNDACION EXCELENTIA and confusingly similar to other registered Complainants’ trademarks, and that the first element of the Policy under paragraph 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
...
2020-02-20 - Case Details
Having considered the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules, the Supplemental Rules and applicable principles of law, the Panel’s findings on each of the above cited elements are as follows.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires Complainant to show that the Domain Name in question is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SKYSCANNER trademark in which Complainant has valid trademark rights. ...
2020-03-02 - Case Details
The above-mentioned circumstances lead the Panel to consider that the Respondent’s communication should not be admitted as a Response, albeit for the sake of completeness the Panel may take into consideration the information contained in the Respondent’s email in the assessment of the case, as any other evidence included in the file, if the Panel considers it may be helpful to decide the case.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered identical or confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of the Policy. ...Accordingly, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark, and the first element of the Policy under paragraph 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
...
2020-01-16 - Case Details