Parties’ Contentions
5.A Complainant
5.A.1 Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name, but for the addition of the gTLD “.com”, is identical to the CLAN CAMPBELL trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
5.A.2 Rights or Legitimate Interests
5.A.2.1 The Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized use by the Respondents of the CLAN CAMPBELL trademarks or the disputed domain name.
5.A.2.2 Given the well-known status of the CLAN CAMPBELL trademark, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent, whatever its true identity must have known that it could not acquire any rights to or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
5.A.2.3 For the same reason, the Complainant asserts that no use by the Respondents of the disputed domain name can be bona fide.
5.A.2.4 Certainly, says the Complainant, the use to which the Respondents have put the disputed domain name has not been bona fide, legitimate or fair. ...The Respondent Whois Protection has a record of undefended decisions made against it under the Policy where the disputed domain names have been identical to or confusingly similar to other widely known third party trademarks. These have included the HALIFAX trademark of HBOS plc, the AEROPOSTALE trademark of Aerospostale West Inc., the BMW trademark of Bayerische Motoren Werk A.G. etc. ...
2008-08-04 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant indicates in the Complaint that it relies on its trade mark registrations and Dutch trade name rights. ...Therefore the Panelist finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trade marks and trade name.
The Panelist finds that Complainant has complied with the first ground of article 2.1 sub a of the Regulations.
...
2008-11-06 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant is the owner of United States Trademark Registration Nos. 2,212,783 and 2,077,211, among others, all for the mark MASTERCARD, or for marks incorporating the term MASTERCARD. ...Respondent's domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's MASTERCARD trademark because it incorporates the entirety of Complainant's trademark and merely adds the generic term “free,” along with a hyphen and the generic top level “.com” domain name. ...
2008-11-05 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Applying the principles developed and now broadly accepted under the Policy, the disputed domain is identical to the trademark1. ...FA125227 (redirecting users for a commission is using a confusingly similar domain name for commercial benefit, which is evidence of bad faith)....
2008-10-29 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to the CYTODYNE marks in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant asserts that the distinctive portion of the disputed domain name is identical to its CYTODYNE marks.
...Taking each of these issues in turn, the Panel decides as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence produced by the Complainant, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the CYTODYNE mark.
...
2008-06-12 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The test of confusing similarity under the Policy is on the basis of a comparison between the disputed domain name and the trade mark, independently of the products for which the domain name is used, or other factors, such as marketing and use, which are usually relevant to trade mark infringement: Arthur Guinness Son & Co. ...The Panel thus finds that the domain names and are confusingly similar to the trade marks in which the Complainant has rights, and considers that the Complainant has established the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2009-11-30 - Case Details
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.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The conduct by Respondent is argued by Complainant to be a kind of “typosquatting” or “spoofing” where previous UDRP decisions found that there was confusing similarity.
...The Panel takes into account previous UDRP decisions relating to the practice of “typosquatting” where such practice has consistently been regarded as creating domain names confusingly similar to the relevant mark. This is a well-established point. ACCOR v. Brigit Klostermann,
WIPO Case No. ...
2007-09-18 - Case Details
In particular, the Complainants claim that the disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to their trademark CIC and identical to their trademark and registered domain name CIC SECURITIES.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name registered is . The Complainants have rights in trademarks for the denominations CIC and CIC SECURITIES. ...
2007-11-19 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the AIR FRANCE trademark because (i) the AIR FRANCE trademark is entirely reproduced in the domain name, (ii) the suffix “travel” refers to the main business of Complainant and suggests that the disputed domain name refers to Complainant, and (iii) Complainant owns a very similar domain name ().
...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.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The trademark AIR FRANCE is a widely known trademark. When a respondent merely adds generic or descriptive terms to an otherwise distinctive and famous trademark, the domain name is to be considered confusingly similar to the registered trademark. ...
2007-05-15 - Case Details
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant is obliged to prove that each of the three following elements are satisfied:
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and been used in bad faith.
...The Trading Force Limited,
WIPO Case No. D2002-1038.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks.
...
2010-09-28 - Case Details
Complainants object to the use of the Domain Name at issue by Respondent on the following grounds.
The disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which Complainants have rights. The only distinction between the trademark CASINO.COM and the Domain Name is the addition of the two letters “i” in the middle and “s” at the end of the word “casino”. ...On the other hand, if Complainants fail to prove only one of the three elements above, they must fail on their Complaint under the Policy.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainants evidenced their rights in the registered Community Trademark CASINO.COM (see above, section 4). ...
2010-07-13 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainant owns rights; the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name; and the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has rights in the trademark MEAD JOHNSON by virtue of the registered trademarks which it has cited. ...
2010-10-15 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This first element requires that the Complainant demonstrate that (1) it has trademark rights and (2) the disputed domain name is identical or similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
1. ...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainants trademarks.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The second element requires the Complainant to prove that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question.
...
2011-02-11 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP requires Complainant to make out all three of the following:
(i) the disputed 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 disputed domain name; and
(iii) Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...In comparing Complainant’s LINKEDIN mark with the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. The disputed domain name consists of an obvious misspelling of Complainant’s mark. ...
2021-07-06 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name incorporates Complainant’s mark BENEFITFOCUS in its entirety. This is sufficient to establish confusing similarity (Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...D2002-0122).
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the BENEFITFOCUS mark of Complainant.
Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2020-05-01 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Based on article 2.1 of the Regulations, a request to transfer a domain name must meet three cumulative conditions:
(a) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to:
I. a trademark, or trade name, protected under Dutch law in which the complainant has rights; or
II. a personal name registered in the General Municipal Register (“gemeentelijke basisadministratie”) of a municipality in the Netherlands, or the name of a Dutch public legal entity or the name of an association or foundation registered in the Netherlands under which complainant undertakes public activities on a permanent basis; and
(b) respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(c) the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.
...As a result, the Panel is directed to decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of the complaint only.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Article 2.1(a) of the Regulations requires two elements to be proven. A disputed domain name should be (i) identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or tradename (ii) in which a complainant has rights.
...
2020-07-21 - Case Details
Based on the evidence and arguments submitted, the Panel’s findings are as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has shown that it has valid rights in the mark UNILEVER, based on its intensive use and registration of the same as trademarks in a large number of jurisdictions.
Moreover, as to whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark, the disputed domain name consists of only the Complainant’s registered trademark for UNILEVER, followed by the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), “.shop”. ...
2021-11-02 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel permits this Complaint to proceed in the form in which it was filed.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Once the gTLD “.com” is ignored (which is appropriate in this case), each disputed domain name consists of the whole of the Complainant’s registered word trademark CARVANA, followed by either “markt” or “markts”, which are the German words for “market” and “markets”, respectively. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondents are not licensees of the Complainant, are not otherwise affiliated with the Complainant, and have not been authorized by the Complainant to use its CARVANA word trademark. ...
2021-11-01 - Case Details
Complainant
5.1 The Complainant refers to its business and trade marks and refers to previous UDRP cases in which it has been involved where it is said the fame and reputation of its MICHELIN mark was recognised. It contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its trade mark and that the Respondent in choosing the Domain Name intended an association with the Complainant.
5.2 The Complainant refers to the way in which the Domain Name has been used since registration. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.4 The Complainant has satisfied the Panel that it has registered trade mark rights in the term “Michelin”. ...
2021-05-10 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s TMALL trademarks, as it incorporates the TMALL mark in its entirety. ...However, references to the Respondent shall include any actions by the beneficial holder regarding the Domain Name.
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element of a UDRP complaint “functions primarily as a standing requirement” and entails “a straightforward comparison between the complainant’s trademark and the domain name”. ...
2021-06-28 - Case Details