The Panel is satisfied that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to these marks (as the term is understood for the purposes of the Policy).
6.6 Some of these marks were registered subsequent to the registration of the Domain Name and some of these do not cover The Netherlands. ...However, they are essentially irrelevant so far as paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is concerned.
6.8 Similarly, the Respondent’s contention that the Domain Name and the Complaints’ marks are not confusingly similar because of the way in which the Domain Name has been used, misunderstands how the Policy operates. ...
2008-06-20 - Case Details
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Although the disputed domain names are not identical to Complainant's CISCO trademark, the Panel agrees with Complainant and concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark.1
The disputed domain name is made up of the simple combination of Complainant's trademark and the widely used abbreviation for the United Kingdom.
...The Panel finds that the addition of the term “uk” to Complainant's trademark does not alter the confusion with Complainant's marks that Internet users would experience; it follows that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark.
Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Complaint makes the required showing under Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2010-05-20 - Case Details
The Complainants contend that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks CANAL PLUS and CANAL + owned by the Complainants and that the Top Level Domain “.tv” is apt to increase the risk of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainants’ marks.
...D2000-0429 “the specific top level of the domain name such as ‘.net’ or ‘.com’ does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar.”
In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Complainants have proven that the disputed domain name is identical to the CANAL PLUS trademarks and confusingly similar to the CANAL + trademarks in which the Complainants have rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2011-02-14 - Case Details
The Panel will therefore deal with each of these requirements in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant must first establish that there is a trademark or service mark in which it has rights. ...This, in combination with the fact that Respondent registered two domain names that are confusingly similar to the trademarks of Complainant, makes it conceivable that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s LA MAISON DU CAVIAR and CAVIAR VOLGA trademarks. ...
2011-02-11 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that disputed domain names and are confusingly similar to the trademark BA&SH in which the Complainant has rights as they reproduce the trademark in its entirety, with the mere addition of the dictionary terms “shit” “ever” and “clothing” and the generic Top-Level Domain “.com” and the country code Top-Level Domain “.co”.
...In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the registered trademark in which it has established rights as prescribed by paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2021-03-31 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that:
(1) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s unregistered and registered trademarks because it contains the BIHR mark in its entirety. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under the UDRP paragraph 4(a)(i) the term “trademark or service mark” encompasses both registered and unregistered marks. ...
2021-02-23 - Case Details
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 trademark rights.
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks and the requirement under the first limb of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2020-12-04 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided evidence of ownership of numerous trademark registrations for PETROSSIAN in several countries of the world, as mentioned under Section 4 above.
...In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has established rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2020-08-28 - Case Details
International Electronic Communications Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MARLBORO mark, in which the Complainant has established rights through registration and long and extensive use in commerce. ...When the relevant trademark is recognizable in the disputed domain name, the domain name normally will be considered confusingly similar to the mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
3 Id.
4 See WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.11 ....
2020-10-27 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There are two parts to the inquiry under the first element of the Policy, which functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and therefore that the first element under the Policy has been established.
...
2020-04-15 - Case Details
i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
That the disputed domain name includes the Complainants’ famous name and trademark ALDI.
...Therefore, the Panel is of the opinion that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trademark ALDI. Accordingly, the first element of the Policy has been met.
...
2020-01-22 - Case Details
International Electronic Communications Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel initially addresses whether the Complainant has established unregistered or common law rights in WELBORN DOORS. ...Nevertheless, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s WELBORN DOORS mark, and which the Respondent is using to redirect Internet users to the Respondent’s website.
...
2021-01-15 - Case Details
The Respondent contends that the disputed domain names are not identical to the Complainant’s FACEBOOK mark and that the disputed domain names would not be found confusingly similar by any average person conducting a search seeking cryptocurrency-related information. ...International Electronic Communications Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names , , , , , , and are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well known FACEBOOK mark, in which the Complainant has demonstrated rights through registration and extensive use. ...
2019-12-30 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element requires the Complainant to establish the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark in which it has rights.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name reflects the Complainant’s marks, namely its house mark OYO and the OYO LIFE mark and the disputed domain name is found confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant has fulfilled the first requirement under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2019-11-21 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant makes the following submissions.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is a leading lifestyle media company and has been using the name FOOD NETWORK since 1996.
...Alesini Pablo Hernan / PrivacyProtect.org,
WIPO Case No. D2013-2059).
B. 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 a name, trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2019-09-20 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(i) Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant states that its TALAGE trademark satisfies the threshold requirement of having trademark rights to qualify for standing to file a UDRP case. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in its TALAGE trademark based on ownership of the mark’s registration in the United States. ...
2019-06-25 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence of the Complainant’s trademark registrations, the Panel finds that the Complainant
has rights in the semi-figurative SUNWARD mark.
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the
Complainant has rights. The Complainant has satisfied the first element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2022-09-19 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided evidence of its registration of its OLYMPIC trademark as an International
registration in Classes 1-45, the designation of this mark in the EU in the same classes and its trademark
registration in Switzerland (again in Classes 1-45). ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s OLYMPIC
trademark and finds in favor of the Complainant.
...
2022-10-26 - Case Details
Under paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, “[a] Panel shall decide a 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
it deems applicable”.
page 5
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complaint asserts that the Domain Name is “identical or confusingly similar to a trade name in which the
Complainant has rights” (emphasis added), citing the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-06-21 - Case Details
In all of these circumstances, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s trademark and that the Complainant has carried its burden with regard to paragraph 4(a)(i) of
the Policy.
...Preliminary matter: Other Legal Proceedings and Respondent’s request for suspension
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
D. Rights or Legitimate Interests
E. Registered and Used in Bad Faith...
2023-05-19 - Case Details