Accordingly, having regard to the factors identified in WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 4.5.1 as applied in this case, the Panel considers that English can be used as the language of the proceeding.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element that the Complainants must establish is that the disputed domain names are identical with, or confusingly similar to, the Complainants’ trademark rights.
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainants have established that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trademarks and the requirement under the first limb of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2018-06-21 - Case Details
Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks, that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and that the disputed domain names were registered and being used in bad faith.
...For all of the above-mentioned reasons, the domain names in dispute are identical or confusingly similar to the trademark MICHELIN in which the Complainant has rights, and therefore the condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is fulfilled.
...
2018-07-10 - Case Details
D2006-1043 wherein the panel held:
“The practice of ‘typosquatting’ has been consistently regarded in previous UDRP decisions as creating domain names confusingly similar to the relevant mark. ACCOR v. Brigit Klostermann,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0627(finding that ‘typosquatting’”, the practice of misspelling an element of the mark, has consistently been regarded as creating domain names confusingly similar to the relevant mark); Sharman License Holdings, Limited v. ...Domain.Contact, supra (finding that disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the marks which they misspell).”
The Complainants have therefore satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy in respect of the disputed domain names.
...
2018-07-10 - Case Details
The Panel accepts the submissions in both English and Chinese.
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy provides that “[a domain-name holder] is required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that [a complainant] asserts to the applicable [administrative-dispute-resolution service provider], in compliance with the Rules of Procedure, that (i) [the disputed domain name] is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights[.]”
...Having considered the above, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ENERGYNOVA Marks. The condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...
2019-03-14 - 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
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
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
i) The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
That the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark.
...Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademark ACCENTURE of the Complainant.
The first element of the Policy has been met.
...
2020-04-03 - Case Details
The Complaint
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to both of its EUTMs referred to above, and also to its domain name which it has used since 2016. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
At the date of filing of the Complaint, the Complainant was the owner of a figurative EUTM which included the name CASINO DADDY. ...
2020-04-03 - Case Details
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
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
Respondent
The following is a summary of the Respondent’s contentions:
The disputed domain name is not identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade marks, including in terms of sound, appearance, meaning, or commercial impression. ...Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark.>
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2020-07-14 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
As a result of its use for approximately 30 years, the Complainant’s unregistered mark PHOENIX CONTACT has developed extensive fame and goodwill.
...The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2013-02-01 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established trademark rights in the term "citco". The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark. In accordance with many decisions rendered under the Policy, the addition of descriptive terms to a trademark is generally not a distinguishing feature (see Bellsouth Intellectual Property Corporation v. ...
2014-12-02 - Case Details
Paragraph 4 (a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) That the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
(ii) That the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
...The fact that the word mark has been incorporated entirely into the disputed domain name is sufficient to establish that it is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered mark (Quixtar Investments Inc v. Dennis Hoffmann,
WIPO Case No. ...
2014-05-09 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant had registered rights in the trademark FIDELITY as at the Relevant Date, including by way of its numerous registered trademarks in the UK and European Union set out above. ...The Panel accordingly finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainant has rights and finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied in favour of the Complainant.
...
2014-08-29 - Case Details
The Panel also finds that it is appropriate to issue the Decision in English.
6.2 Discussion
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark and, second, is the disputed domain name identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
...It is well established that such element may be disregarded when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. Proactiva Medio Ambiente, S.A. v. Proactiva,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0182.
...
2014-08-04 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant’s GSTAAD Marks and is confusingly similar to such marks.
...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 geographic identifiers, such as “valley” (cf. ...
2014-11-24 - Case Details
The Complainant bears the burden of proof with respect to each of the aforementioned elements.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant must demonstrate that (1) it has rights in the UNI BABY marks and (2) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to those marks. ...JK Plex Pte. Ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0491, and confusingly similar to its various other trademarks comprised of the term UNI BABY plus additional words (such as UNI BABY WORLD and UNI BABY ŞEKIL ).
...
2013-12-27 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which it has rights.
...The Panel accordingly finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark.
The Complainant has successfully established the first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2014-02-03 - Case Details