Complainant
First, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights on the following grounds:
(1) The Complainant is the registered proprietor an international portfolio of registered trade marks for the mark KAREN MILLEN...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Panel finds for the Complainant on the first part of the test.
...
2012-08-23 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in respect of the trademark ITAR TASS, based on its trademark registrations in Russia.
...Further, it is a well-established rule that in making an enquiry as to whether a mark is identical or confusingly similar to a domain name, the generic top-level domain extension, in this case “.com”, may be disregarded (see Rohde & Schwarz GmbH & Co. ...
2013-10-22 - Case Details
Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its trademark, adding only the term “cigs”, which Internet users would understand as slang for cigarettes or cigars. ...The Panel determines that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel has determined that Complainant has rights in the ZIG ZAG trademark, and that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to that trademark.
...
2013-07-16 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(i) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s common law marks VALIANT VIDEO and VALIANT VIDEO ENTERPRISES. ...Furthermore, the Respondent, by registering the name through a privacy service to conceal its true identity and address, also committed bad faith registration and use.
B. Respondent
(i) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Respondent does not appear to dispute the Complainant’s contention that it has common law trademark rights in its VALIANT VIDEO and VALIANT VIDEO ENTERPRISES marks.
...
2013-11-06 - Case Details
The Complainant has established that it owns relevant prior trademark rights.
The Complainant’s earlier rights are confusingly similar to the Domain Name. The Complainant is a very large organisation whose core business is telecommunications. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights in the Trademark, by reason of its registrations cited above.
...
2013-12-11 - Case Details
Complainant
(a) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights:
- The Complainant and its CARREFOUR and CARREFOUR ONLINE trademarks enjoy a worldwide reputation. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has registered the CARREFOUR and CARREFOUR ONLINE trademarks in a number of jurisdictions. ...
2014-02-19 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant established that it is the owner of DEUTZ trademark. The Disputed Domain Names incorporate the DEUTZ trademark in its entirety. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and the condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...
2014-02-07 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has legal rights in its ANADARKO and ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORPORATION trademarks. ...Complainant has demonstrated that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to trademarks in which Complainant has rights and has thus established the first element of its case.
...
2014-02-21 - Case Details
The first element is that the “domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights”. Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). ...Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant establishes that the disputed domain name is “identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights”. ...
2014-11-26 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark. The Complainant’s mark is entirely incorporated in the disputed domain name. ...In these circumstances, the Panel considers it appropriate that the Respondent’s claims are tested against the further filing from the Complainant.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Respondent appears to claim that the disputed domain name is not confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark because the nature of the Respondent’s business is different to the Complainant’s. ...
2015-06-10 - Case Details
Kocher is the proper Respondent.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element that the Complainant must establish is that the disputed domain name is identical with, 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 ownership of the registered trademarks referred to above. ...
2014-07-01 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established trademark rights in the term “fundsnetwork”. ...In addition, the “.com” gTLD suffix in the disputed domain name does not affect the determination that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with FUNDSNETWORK in which the Complainant has trademark rights (see also Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. ...
2014-09-12 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant relies upon three registered INVEST KOMFORT trade marks (see above). ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark and hence the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...
2015-06-19 - Case Details
Therefore, the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademark and the requirement under section 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is owner of the trademark LEASEWEB which is undisputedly part of the disputed domain name. ...
2012-01-19 - Case Details
Consequently, only these six marks will be considered in this case.
b. Identical or confusingly similar
The Domain Name consists of the combination of the designation "galatasaray", the word "store", and the ".com" gTLD suffix. ...This likelihood is supported by the fact that if one enters "Galatasaray store" as a query into a search engine such as Google, most of the websites referred to regard the Club.
Therefore, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the (most distinctive element of the) well-known marks in which Galatasaray Pazarlama holds rights.
...
2003-03-10 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.2 The Panel is satisfied on the evidence before it that the Complainant has at least some trademark rights in either "greenpages" and/or "Green Pages Store". ...Decision
In the light of the above findings, the Panel's decision is as set out below:-
(i) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2003-06-04 - Case Details
The grounds for the Complaint are:
(1) the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to
the trademark USAG for which Complainant owns several registrations in various
countries, among which Belgium (Benelux) where Respondent is located. ...Trademark rights
Complainant has provided sufficient evidence of its right to the trademark USAG.
B. Identical or confusingly similar
The domain name is clearly confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark USAG.
...
2003-04-29 - Case Details
Consequently, the Panel shall further analyze the concurrence or not of the above-mentioned circumstances in the present case.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first circumstance that must be given is that the disputed domain name may be considered as identical or confusingly similar to the HARRODS marks on which the Complainant holds rights.
...As a consequence of what it has been stated, the Panel considers that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the "HARRODS" trademarks owned by the Complainant. Therefore, the Panel considers that the condition set out by Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant.
...
2003-12-17 - Case Details
Middletons Lawyers have received no response to their letter dated August 12, 2003.
5. Parties’ Contentions
Complainant
Confusingly Similar
The Complainant, Middletons Lawyers, is known throughout Australia as "Middletons". ...Although the registered trademark contains the word "Lawyers", the
domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark. The word "Lawyers"
contributes in a subordinate manner to the overall impression of the trademark.
...
2003-12-08 - Case Details
Domain Name is Confusingly
Similar/Identical to a Trademark or Service Mark in which the Complainant has
Rights
The Complainants have demonstrated
that individually they each have rights in the respective marks SONERA and TELIA
which are registered as trademarks in many countries. ...The Panel therefore finds
that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the First Complainant’s
mark SONERA and confusingly to the Second Complainant’s mark TELIA.
...
2002-07-09 - Case Details