From the report Best Canadian Brands 2008 it follows that BLACKBERRY ranks as the number 1 brand in Canada.
Identical or confusingly similar
Referring to WIPO case law, the Complainant contends that the incorporation of the entire BLACKBERRY trademark in a domain name leads to confusion and that the addition of the term “porn” does nothing to diminish this confusion. ...Since the entire trademark BLACKBERRY is incorporated in the disputed domain name, the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks. The addition of the generic phrase “porn” to the trademark BLACKBERRY in the domain name does not change this (see Polaroid Corporation v. ...
2008-09-25 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which it has rights.
The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.
...B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has produced sufficient evidence to establish to the satisfaction of the Panel that it has trade mark rights in respect of the name DIGITURK. ...
2008-04-01 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
5.A Complainant
Confusing Similarity: Policy paragraph 4(a)(i)
5.A.1 Complainant says that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its EQUIFAX trademark. The suffix “mortgage” is merely descriptive of services which the Complainant offers [see, paragraph 4.A.9 above] and the Respondent also provides links to [see, paragraph 4.B.3 above]. ...That is, the Policy expressly recognizes that other circumstances can be evidence relevant the requirements of paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and (iii) of the Policy.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.5 The Complainant has established registered trademark rights in EQUIFAX dating from 1975. ...
2008-05-23 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The contested domain name is not identical to the Complainant’s SANDALS trade mark, as it includes the prefix ‘www’. ...The Panel finds that the contested domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is not known by the domain name or the relevant part of the domain name (“sandals”). ...
2008-07-04 - Case Details
Complainant must establish each element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, namely:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Michael Robertson,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0009).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered AKBANK trademarks. ...
2008-06-26 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's trademark HENRY COTTON'S; the only difference is the adjunction of the suffix “.com”.
...D2005-0457) does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar; indeed the suffix is a necessary component of the domain name and does not give any distinctiveness.
...
2008-08-28 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that 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 he has built up substantial and extensive goodwill under the name “Sir Peter Scott”, which constitutes a common law trade mark right entitled to protection under the UDRP.
...The Panel will proceed to establish whether the Complainant has discharged the burden of proof in respect of the three elements referred to in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
If the Complainant is to succeed, he must prove either registered or unregistered trade mark rights in the name “Sir Peter Scott” in order to satisfy paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2009-05-06 - Case Details
Complainant
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant holds the rights over the Etablissements LEOBERT name. ...C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant registered the disputed domain name, which corresponded to the trading name it had since 1975 and in which it has demonstrated trademark rights through continued use for the purposes of a determination regarding the first element of the Policy, and in 2006 when the domain name was deleted.
...
2009-04-28 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Pursuant to the Policy, Complainant is required to prove the presence of each of the following three elements to obtain the relief it has requested: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. ...Therefore, given that the Panel in the instant case finds,
as discussed below, that Complainant has failed to prove the first element of
the Policy – that is, paragraph 4(a)(i) – the Panel makes no findings
with respect to the second or third elements of the Policy.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prevail under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, a complainant must convince
the panel not only that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar
to a trademark or service mark but that “the complainant has rights”
in the mark. ...
2007-02-01 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s
contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided evidence of a US trademark
registration consisting of the term LANCASTER Estate. ...It is well-established that the specific top level of a domain name
such as <.com>, <.org> or <.net> does not affect the domain
name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar
pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy (See Magnum Piering, Inc. v.
The Mudjackers and Garwood & Wilson, Sr., WIPO
Case No. ...
2007-01-25 - Case Details
“While the [timing of respondent’s registration]
is not relevant in determining whether a complainant has established rights
in a mark to which the domain name is identical or confusingly similar, it is
indeed relevant for purposes of paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.”
...D2006-0964 (Listing “good-faith efforts to avoid registering
and using domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to marks held
by others” as one factor to be considered in evaluating a domain name
seller’s conduct under Section 4(a)(iii) of the Policy); Mobile Communication
Service Inc. v. ...
2007-01-23 - Case Details
Moreover, the Panel finds that in view of the very high conceptual resemblance between the words “voyages” and “vacances”, the disputed domain name must be found confusingly similar with the earlier trademarks and domain names “Leclerc vacances” owned by the Complainant.
It is the Panel’s opinion therefore that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks and domain names LECLERC and LECLERC VOYAGES in which the Complainant holds earlier proprietary rights.
...
2006-12-28 - Case Details
Complainant
(i) The Complainant submits that it owns the registered trademarks relied upon in the Complaint and that the domain name in dispute is identical to or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
(ii) The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name because:
(a) The domain name content is not related to the word EWON.
...The Panel proceeds to deal with each of these elements in turn:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant relies upon its Benelux and Spanish trademark registrations. The Benelux trademark registration was registered on December 1, 2000, and the Spanish on August 2, 2005. ...
2006-08-25 - Case Details
The Panel deals with each of these elements in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name at issue combines two trademarks with the simple addition of the suffix “.com”. ...However, the Panel finds that the Domain Name at issue is confusingly similar with the combined word trademarks registered by the Complainant.
Thus, the first element is made out.
...
2006-07-05 - Case Details
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a Complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) the domain name in issue is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark or service mark; and
(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances any one of which, if proved by Respondent, shall be evidence of the Respondent’s rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name for the purpose of paragraph 4(a)(ii) above.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is required under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy to prove that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2006-06-29 - Case Details
Kim Hyungho, WIPO Case No.
D2003-0679.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has trademark registrations throughout the world for various MERCEDES-BENZ marks, but it appears that there is no trademark registration for “MERCEDES-BENZ FINANCE” or its acronym “MBF”. ...For the reasons given above, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical and/or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s asserted marks, and the first element (paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy) has been established.
...
2006-06-28 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Domain Name:
(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant holds rights in the mark SKYWATER through registration and use. The Domain Name incorporates the mark and adds the word “systems.” ...
2010-03-09 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated it owns registered trademark rights in the PROTECTIVE trademark in the
United States. ...See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected
UDRP Questions Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).
Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant has presented a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in
respect of the disputed domain name; has not at any time been generally known by the disputed domain
name; has not used or made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name and is not
making a legitimate noncommercial of fair use of the disputed domain name. ...
2022-10-26 - Case Details
The Domain Name incorporates the whole of the
Complainant’s trademark and is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks in accordance with
paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights in its trademark GLUCOPHAGE. The Domain Name is identical to
the Complainant’s trademark.
...
2022-11-04 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant claims that:
(a) the disputed domain name is identical or at least confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark;
(b) the Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate rights in the disputed domain name; and
(c) the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The only difference between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s BELFIUS trademark is the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix “.site”. ...
2021-03-17 - Case Details