A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element inquiry under the Policy usually proceeds in two parts. First, the Complainant must
demonstrate UDRP-relevant rights in a trademark, whether registered or unregistered. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-06-09 - Case Details
The Complainant bears the burden of proof of each of the above elements.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence presented, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the AUTHENTIX mark.
...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.
...
2022-04-25 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s EVERGREEN registered trademark. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element analysis under the Policy has two main steps. First, the Complainant must demonstrate that it has UDRP-relevant rights in a trademark. ...
2021-11-26 - Case Details
Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(i) of the ADR Rules requires that the disputed domain name be “identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by national law of a member State and/or European Union law”.
...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain names and are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks for the purpose of the Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(i) of the ADR Rules.
...
2021-11-24 - Case Details
See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.3.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complaint states that the asserted trademark is GUILD EDUCATION on the basis of common law or unregistered rights. ...As regards the first circumstance set out above, the disputed domain names are all confusingly similar to the GUILD EDUCATION mark and resolve to landing pages displaying PPC links to sites offering educational services. ...
2022-01-12 - Case Details
Second, the Complainant asserts that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the IQOS
trademark owned by the Complainant since the Disputed Domain Name identically adopts the Complainant’s
IQOS trademark. ...However, the
Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s default.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is required to establish the two following elements: (1) that it has trademark rights, and, if
so, (2) that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark.
...
2023-02-14 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its prior registered
trademarks for KAO, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed
domain name, and that the disputed domain name was registered, and is being used in bad faith.
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademark and the first element required by the Policy is fulfilled.
...
2023-02-08 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel finds the disputed domain name confusingly similar to
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-06-22 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated that it has rights in its SLEEPTOPIA trademark, both through its USPTO
registration and continuous use since 2013. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which
Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2023-06-22 - 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
Complainant
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the trademarks SWISSÔTEL in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...Thus, the Panel finds that disregarding the suffixes “-”, “the”, the geographical term “stamford”, and gTLD suffix “.com”, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the SWISSÔTEL marks.
The Panel therefore holds that the Complaint fulfils the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2019-02-19 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights in the mark CELGENE by virtue of its registered trade marks as well as unregistered trade mark rights deriving from its extensive use of that name. The disputed domain name, which simply contains an extra “L”, is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2019-02-19 - 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
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
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
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
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
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