Complainant
1. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s TEVA mark in which the
Complainant has rights. The disputed domain name fully incorporates the TEVA mark with the
addition of a misspelling of the term “Canada”, which renders the disputed domain name similar to the
Complainant’s domain name . ...Discussion and Findings
6.1 Preliminary Issue: 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...
2022-08-19 - Case Details
Those elements are that:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which
the Complainant has rights;
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it has registered trademark rights in the mark WITHINGS. ...
2022-08-03 - Case Details
The Complainant is of the opinion that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to their INSTAGRAM
and INSTA trademarks.
Furthermore, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the
disputed domain names. ...The dominant feature “insta” of the mark is
recognisable in the disputed domain names thereby making it confusingly similar to the INSTAGRAM trademark
(Instagram, LLC v. Sedat Das, Arda Arda, Domain Admin, whoisprotection biz, Domain Admin Domain Admin,
whoisprotection biz, supra; Philip Morris USA Inc. v. ...
2022-07-11 - Case Details
The Complainant further asserts that the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SUPERDRY trade marks, and the addition of the terms “shopping” or “shoponline” do not affect the analysis of whether the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade marks.
...The Panel further finds that such determination would not cause any prejudice to either Party and would ensure that the proceeding takes place with due expedition.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel acknowledges that the Complainant has established rights in the SUPERDRY trade marks in many jurisdictions around the world.
...
2021-11-18 - Case Details
Complainant
The content of the Complaint can be summarized as follows:
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CANVA Mark as the disputed domain names all contain the distinctive CANVA Mark, plus additional terms. ...At the same time, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, if a party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any provision of, or requirement under, the Rules, or any request from the Panel, the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are all confusingly similar (in the sense of the Policy) to the Complainant’s registered CANVA Mark.
...
2022-02-17 - Case Details
Complainant
In summary, the Complainant contends as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The disputed domain name can be considered identical to the Complainant’s FEDRIGONI registered trademark. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There are two parts to the inquiry under the first element of the Policy. The Complainant must demonstrate both that it has UDRP-relevant rights in one or more trademarks and that each of the disputed domain names is identical or confusingly similar to one of these trademarks. ...
2022-02-15 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name incorporates Complainants’ CHEVRON trademark in its entirety. This is sufficient to
establish confusing similarity.
...D2002-0122).
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainants’ trademark.
Complainants have established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2023-06-09 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainants submit that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainants’ INTELLECTUAL VENTURES mark. According to the Complainants, the disputed domain name is a deliberate misspelling of the INTELLECTUAL VENTURES mark, substituting a lower case L (“l”) for the upper case I (“i”), and a classic case of typo-squatting. ...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 Complainants’ INTELLECTUAL VENTURES mark, in which the Complainants have established rights through registration and use.2 In considering identity and confusing similarity, the first element of the Policy serves essentially as a standing requirement.3 The threshold inquiry under the first element of the Policy involves a relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainants’ trademark and the disputed domain name.
...
2021-04-23 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the trademark VST through registration and use demonstrated in the record.
The Panel also concludes that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the VST mark. All but one of the Domain Names entirely incorporate the VST mark, and add words like “cracks”, “cracked”, “torrents”, “land”, and “mafia”. ...
2021-05-03 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s DEMAG mark. The products shown on the associated websites are identical or similar to those specified in the Complainant’s trademark registrations, especially cranes and hoists.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the DEMAG mark.
...
2021-08-23 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element the Complainant must have trade or service mark rights and the Domain Name must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade or service mark.
...The Panel finds the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s TW CLARK CONSTRUCTION Mark and confusingly similar to Complainant’s TW CLARK Mark (as it wholly incorporates the TW CLARK Mark along with the term “construction” which is descriptive of Complainant’s services). ...
2019-08-23 - Case Details
One disputed domain name is identical and the other confusingly similar, as the gTLD and ampersand are not relevant to a comparison between the Complainant's marks and the disputed domain names. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant holds duly registered rights in many trademarks for "Paul & Shark". ...
2016-07-07 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent disputes that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s TRUGREEN mark, which the Respondent contends serves only as a trade name and is merely descriptive of the Complainant’s goods or services. ...International Electronic Communications Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s TRUGREEN marks, in which the Complainant has demonstrated rights through registration and long and extensive use. ...
2018-01-19 - Case Details
The said three elements are considered below.
1. Identical or Confusingly Similar
On the evidence available before the Panel, it has no hesitation in finding that the Complainants have rights in the trademark DR. ...It is also a well-established practice to disregard the top-level part of the domain name when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark in issue. Société Anonyme des Eaux Minerales d’Evian and Societe des Eaux de Volvic v. ...
2012-07-26 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it is the owner of a number of SWAROVSKI trademarks in China and internationally. ...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.
...
2013-02-07 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainants have demonstrated to the Panel’s satisfaction that the First Complainant has rights in the trademark BETVICTOR by virtue of the European Community trademark cited 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 Complainants have rights and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy have been satisfied.
...
2013-03-21 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainants’ word marks TEZ TOUR and OOO Tez Tur's corporate name. It is also confusingly similar with the Complainants’ domain names , , and , the customers being led to believe that the disputed domain name is owned and operated by the Complainants or an affiliated company. ..., and are also confusingly similar to the Complainants' trademarks TEZ TOUR and the domain names , , and , as they are all composed of the common distinctive element "Tez" which will lead the customers to believe that they are all owned and operated by the same companies.
...
2012-12-24 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(i) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to its registered mark GILISSEN simply because the name incorporates that mark in its entirety, while the “.com” generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) is ignored.
...As such, any use to which the Respondent were to put the Complainant’s registered marks or one confusingly similar thereto in connection with the identical or even similar services to those currently provided by the Complainant, in circumstances as are present here, may violate the exclusive trademark rights now residing with the Complainant. ...
2013-09-16 - Case Details
Complainant has not specifically alleged that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark, but has stated that it was the first to use the name “Applegreen” in commerce, and “feels it can lay claim to the domain name Applegreen.com”.
...Each of the aforesaid three elements must be proved by a complainant to warrant relief.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has provided evidence of registration of the word trademark APPLEGREEN at the Trade Mark Office of Ireland, and registered as a word CTM at OHIM. ...
2013-06-25 - Case Details
The remaining assertions in the Respondent’s communications are unsupported by any evidence and are given little or no weight by the Panel.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element the Complainant must have trade or service mark rights and the Domain Names must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade or service mark.
...The Panel finds that each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CHASE Mark. Consequently, the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2013-12-18 - Case Details