Having considered the Complaint and the available evidence, the Panel finds the following:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry – a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trade mark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trade mark.
...The Panel accepts that reasoning and finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2019-05-23 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated rights through registration and use on the DELL mark.
The Panel finds that the first Domain Name is confusingly similar to the DELL trademark of Complainant.
...The Panel finds that the second Domain Name is confusingly similar to the DELL mark of Complainant.
Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2019-10-03 - Case Details
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. ...In view of the above findings, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark GEICO and that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy stands satisfied.
...
2019-11-18 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent makes the following submissions.
Identical or Confusingly Similar / Rights or Legitimate Interests
The registrant of the Disputed Domain Name is Aaron Wasserlauf, an individual of the United States (“the Registrant”). ...The Complainant is not barred from bringing a Complaint by reason of its delay.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.
...
2019-09-04 - Case Details
See section 4.8, 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, 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.
...
2019-12-30 - Case Details
The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”
is irrelevant in determining whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar. See, Research in
Motion Limited v Thamer Ahmed Alfarshooti, WIPO Case No. D2012-1146; WIPO Overview 3.0, section
1.11.
...Moreover, panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or
confusingly similar to a well-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of
bad faith. ...
2022-11-21 - Case Details
However, the Panel has taken all submissions in the case into consideration and notes that the substantive
findings below apply regardless of the determination of the Respondent identity.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), the Complainants have to prove that the disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainants have rights.
...UDRP panels widely agree that incorporating a trademark into a domain name can be sufficient to establish
that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark for purpose of the Policy
(see, e.g., Uniroyal Engineered Products, Inc. v. ...
2022-11-18 - Case Details
These
differences are of no practical consequence and the Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain names
are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
Accordingly, the Complainant has carried its burden in terms of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
8. Decision...
2023-01-09 - Case Details
This website initially “presented” Kinetik products but now offers them for sale to European customers.
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in which the Complainant has rights recognised or established by national law of a Member State and/or Community law, namely the domain name and the company name “Kinetik Sport”. ...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 the national law of a Member State and/or European Union law”.
...
2021-06-01 - Case Details
Complainant is active in more than 30 countries, particularly in EU countries, and offers a range of products, solutions and services in the agriculture field. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark since it includes the term “bioline” in its entirety, which is the sole verbal element of Complainant’s trademark and is also confusingly similar to marks owned by an entity related to Complainant. ...In comparing Complainant’s BIOLINE mark with the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with Complainant’s mark. The disputed domain name contains Complainant’s BIOLINE mark in its entirety. ...
2021-04-12 - Case Details
Moreover, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s IMANAGE mark because the disputed domain name
consists of the IMANAGE Mark with the “.eu” country code Top‐Level Domain (ccTLD) added to it. ...Accordingly, the Panel permits the consolidation of the Complaint.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar to a name in respect of which a right or rights are recognized or
established by national law of a Member State and/or European Union law
The Complainant is required to establish: (1) that it owns a right or rights that are recognized or established
by national law of a Member State and/or European Union law in a name and, if so, (2) that the disputed
domain name is identical or confusingly similar to this name.
...
2025-01-13 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that:
in terms of confusing similarity,
- the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark NESPRESSO in which the
Complainant has rights.
- the disputed domain name is a clear misspelling of the NESPRESSO trademark. ...Complainant
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-09-27 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer
of the Disputed Domain Name, as follows:
(i) The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, in which
the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its IQOS trademark
because it incorporates the trademark in its entirety. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-07-15 - Case Details
Substantive Elements of the Policy
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
7. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
8. Decision...
2024-08-09 - 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 the Panel deems applicable.
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 name, trade mark or service mark.
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s name and the first requirement under the Policy is satisfied.
B. ...
2021-11-24 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the Domain Names are all identical or confusingly similar to its PETRA BY NIGHT mark, in which it claims common law rights, as well as confusingly similar to the registered figurative trademark in which those words are the dominant element. ...Therefore, the Panel finds that all four Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered PETRA BY NIGHT trademarks for purposes of the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i) and concludes that the Complainant has established the first element of the Complaint.
...
2022-01-10 - Case Details
“Tarmac” is generally understood to mean someone who works with the substance.
Identical or confusingly similar / rights and legitimate interests
The Complainant’s branding is white and blue. The Respondent’s is orange and purple. ...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 carried its burden in terms of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2022-01-07 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademark, 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.
...The Panel finds
that there is no doubt that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered
trademark, as the disputed domain name includes the Complainant’s mark in full, with only the addition of
the term “919” to the IQOS mark, which does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity (see section 1.8 of
the WIPO Overview 3.0).
...
2022-05-19 - Case Details
Complainant
The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainants’ HIMS and HERS marks.
The Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. ...Language of the Proceeding
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-03-24 - Case Details
The Complainant argues that previous decisions establish that the addition of descriptive or generic indications to a third party trade mark does not avoid the disputed domain name being confusingly similar to the third party trade mark giving examples (such as in Valero Energy Corporation and Valero Marketing and Supply Company v. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
There is no evidence that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...
2022-02-09 - Case Details