Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which it has rights.
The Complainant further contends that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names and points in support of this contention to the facts and matters set out in sections 3 and 4 above.
...The remaining elements of the Domain Names are descriptive/generic and non-distinctive.
The Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights.
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The content of the Respondents’ websites makes it clear that the references therein to TURBOTAX are intended to be taken as references to the Complainant’s trade mark. ...
2008-06-25 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it has valid trademark rights for two separate marks TELEDYNE and CONTINENTAL.
...Panels have considered that a disputed domain name containing a combination
of a complainant’s marks can be confusingly similar for the purposes of
satisfying element 4(a) of the Policy. See Royal Bank of Canada, Dain Rauscher
Corporation and Dain Rauscher Incorporated v. ...
2006-10-26 - Case Details
Complainant
With respect to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant contends that:
The second level domain portion of Respondent’s domain name is identical, or confusingly similar, to Complainant’s registered trademark MASTER BUILDER and the top level domain, “.com” “does not detract from the overall impression of the dominant portion of the domain”.
...Policy, paragraph 4(a).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the MASTER BUILDER mark. Complainant
owns a United States federal registration for MASTER BUILDER. ...
2006-03-14 - Case Details
Statements in the Complaint will be more closely discussed below.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant is the owner of service mark no. 200371665 BENKA PULKO, registered in Slovenia on November 3, 2003. ...Nonetheless, all four disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered Slovenian mark and to the name Complainant uses as her personal name. ...
2006-03-28 - Case Details
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its service mark. Complainant indicates that Respondent deliberately adopted the disputed domain name because it is confusingly similar to its service mark.
...These elements are that:
(i) respondent's domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) respondent's domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2009-09-23 - Case Details
Complainant
(i) The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark.
The Complainant points out that the Domain Name reproduces the Complainant's entire trade mark in the term TAMIFLU. ...Taking each of these issues in turn, the Panel decides as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element that needs to be satisfied is whether the Complainant has rights in the term TAMIFLU.
...
2009-09-11 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its marks, because the LPGA mark is incorporated entirely in the disputed domain name with the addition of the generic or descriptive term “tour”.
...The Panel also considers that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's LPGA mark. That mark is wholly incorporated in the disputed domain name, and includes the dictionary term “tour”. ...
2009-10-06 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant indicated in the Complaint that it relies on its trademark registrations. ...Therefore the Panelist finds that the Domain Name is at least confusingly similar to Complainant's trade mark (see also Société Air France v. A Coppola,
WIPO Case No. DNL2009-0001).
...
2009-10-29 - Case Details
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant's registered marks and is confusingly similar to the famous trademark AMBIEN owned by the Complainant.
The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no prior rights in the name AMBIEN, and the Respondent has never been authorized to use the AMBIEN trademark and is not a licensee of the Complainant. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the documents provided by the Complainant, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has well proven that it is the owner of the trademarks AMBIEN and the high reputation of the trademark AMBIEN.
...
2010-02-03 - Case Details
This is not a simple rubber-stamping, however, as paragraph 15(a) of the Rules requires the panel to decide a 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
There are two parts to this inquiry: does the Complainant have trademark rights in a sign and, if so, is the disputed domain name identical or confusingly similar to that mark?
...Accordingly, the Panel readily concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The second factor that the Complainant is required to establish is that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
...
2009-02-17 - Case Details
Dariusz Herman, Herman DOMCREATE et co.,
WIPO Case No. DNAME2004-00001).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is clear from the record that the Complainant has established rights in the trademark GOOGLE. ...The Panel accordingly holds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's GOOGLE trademark and that the first requirement of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2009-03-23 - Case Details
Having considered the Complainant’s case and the available evidence, the Panel finds the following:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Although the Complainant has not expressly argued the point, the Panel has no hesitation in finding that the disputed domain name is identical to a registered trademark in which the Complainant has rights. ...D2002-0946.
Here the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark, is being used to provide sponsored links and to promote the sale of commercial products and services apparently unconnected with the Complainant in any way, or at the least, drive Internet traffic through the site attaching to the disputed domain name.
...
2007-02-22 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant argues that, except for the letters “bk”, the disputed domain name is identical to the trademark LA CAIXA and, relying on previous WIPO UDRP decisions, contends that (i) incorporating a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark, (ii) if the “bk” addition were to be considered a semantic contribution, the disputed domain name would also be identical or confusingly similar to the trademark CAIXABANK, (iii) the mere addition of a slight spelling variation is not to be considered as creating a different trademark or avoiding confusion with Complainant’s registered trademark. ...The Panel will now review each of the three cumulative elements set forth in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy to determine whether Complainant has complied with such requirements.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This Panel concurs with the opinion of several prior WIPO UDRP panels which have held that, when a domain name wholly incorporates a complainant’s registered mark, that may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy. ...
2007-03-14 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to its PELE trade mark registrations.
The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of any of the Domain Names.
...Reverse Domain Name Hijacking is defined in paragraph 1 of the Rules as meaning “using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain name holder of a domain name.”
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Each of the Domain Names features Pele’s name (i.e. the Complainant’s registered trade mark) and a descriptive suffix. ...
2007-05-29 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name fully incorporates the highly distinctive ACOMPLIA Marks in which the Complainant has exclusive rights.
...It is well established that a domain name that wholly incorporates a trademark may be confusingly similar to such trademark for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of descriptive words (cf. ...
2007-05-15 - Case Details
It then says that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the CLICKBANK mark as the spelling of that word in the disputed domain name is the same as the spelling of the same word in the trademark.
...The Panel will therefore deal with each of these requirements in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts the evidence submitted by the Complainant that it owns the registered CLICKBANK mark to which reference has been made, that it is current and that the Complainant therefore has rights in that mark.
...
2011-03-21 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established trademark rights in the term VERIZON. The disputed domain name is not identical but confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademarks. The Complainant’s VERIZON trademark and the disputed domain name have the same number of letters. ...
2011-04-19 - Case Details
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. ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.
The Panel therefore holds that the Complaint fulfills the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2011-04-19 - Case Details
It is incumbent on the Complainant to show:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name incorporates parts of the Complainant’s trademark BULLDOG NUTRITION & DESIGN. ...
2011-05-23 - Case Details
Furthermore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark SWAROVSKI despite the additional hyphen followed by the word “jewelry” and the generic top-level domain “.com”.
...It is well established practice to disregard the top-level part of the domain name, when accessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark in isue. Société Anonyme des Eaux Minerales d’Evian and Societe des Eaux de Volvic v. ...
2011-02-11 - Case Details