Because the Disputed Domain Name incorporates Complainant’s Mark entirely, it is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s registered Mark. Respondent’s addition of the term “security” does not prevent a finding of
confusing similarity. ...D2022-4222
(finding confusingly similar to complainant’s ALLIED UNIVERSAL and ALLIED
UNIVERSAL SECURITY SERVICES marks).)
...
2023-04-12 - Case Details
There is no basis for the Complaint against Domains By Proxy, LLC to have been maintained and the Panel dismisses it.
D. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it has trade mark rights in respect of the mark VEOLIA. ...While each case is judged on its own merits, in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trade mark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing.”
Adopting that approach, the Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s VEOLIA trade mark.
...
2018-05-23 - Case Details
The Panel is also required under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy to examine whether the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark. The Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s ALBEMARLE trade mark in its entirety with the addition of the generic term “lithium”, a chemical element. ...The Panel therefore finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ALBEMARLE trade mark.
The Complainant has therefore satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2016-11-30 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the TAUBER trademark in which the Complainant claims to have rights.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element that the Complainant must establish is that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant rights.
...
2016-09-15 - Case Details
On the basis of the arguments and evidence introduced by the Complainant, the Panel concludes as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in the MOU name by virtue of its use and registration of the same as a trade mark.
...The addition of the generic Top‑Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com" does not impact the analysis of whether the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark.
...
2016-07-08 - Case Details
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 LAMBORGHINI mark, in which the Complainant has demonstrated rights. ...Regardless, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to the LAMBORGHINI mark, and which adopts a naming convention used by authorized Lamborghini dealers. ...
2017-06-19 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Ownership of a trademark registration is generally sufficient evidence that a complainant has the requisite rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...With Complainant’s rights in the TONER CONNECT mark established, the remaining question under the first element of the Policy is whether the disputed domain name (typically disregarding the generic Top-Level Domain “.com”) is identical or confusingly similar with Complainant’s mark. See B & H Foto & Electronics Corp. v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. / Joseph Gross,
WIPO Case No. ...
2019-03-06 - Case Details
To ensure fairness, the Panel will also admit the Respondent's Supplemental Filing.
B. Identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark
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 names are at least confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks and the requirement under the first limb of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2018-06-29 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are made out in the present case:
(1) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s OCTOPUSTRAVEL mark as the word “travel” is descriptive and the distinctive part of the Complainant’s trademark is “octopus”, which is identical to the disputed domain name...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name consists of the term “octopus”, which is included in the Complainant’s OCTOPUSTRAVEL Mark.
...
2011-06-03 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel will admit the proposed Supplemental Filing into the record.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There are two parts to this inquiry: the Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark, and, if so, the disputed domain names must be shown to be identical or confusingly similar to the proven trademark.
...In these circumstances, the Panel finds that when viewed as a whole the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered and unregistered mark. The Panel would also find it confusingly similar to the figurative or device trademarks as well, as the disputed domain name and those trademarks share the string SAP which is the likely verbal reference in those trademarks.
...
2012-02-06 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends:
1. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s LEGO mark. The addition of the suffix “discounter” is not relevant, and will not have any impact on the overall impression of the dominant part of the Domain Name, which is the Complainant’s LEGO mark. ...v) Given the notoriety of the Complainant’s LEGO mark, any use which the Respondent would make of a domain name that incorporated the Complainant’s mark, or one confusingly similar thereto, would likely violate the exclusive trademark rights which the Complainant has long held in its LEGO mark (citing Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft v. ...
2012-01-04 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademarks in which it has rights through its parent company’s registration and use and the Complainant’s own authorised use of the trademarks TOYOTA, LEXUS and SCION, and through the registration and use by it or its parent and sister companies of domain names incorporating these marks. ...The Complainant also submits that the Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complainant’s cease and desist letter and reminders further demonstrates bad faith in registering and using domain names that are confusingly similar to the TOYOTA, LEXUS and SCION trademarks.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions and is in default. ...
2012-02-29 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its ANDROID trademark because it incorporates it in its entirety. The Respondent does not avoid likely confusion by adding the descriptive and non-distinctive terms “apps store”, particularly as it describes an online store where “apps” or applications can be purchased. ...More specifically, the correct question is whether a respondent is using descriptively that part of the domain name that is identical with or confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark (referred to hereafter as “the trademark part” of the domain name). ...
2013-01-24 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established trademark rights in the term RED BULL. ...In addition, the “.com” suffix in the disputed domain name does not affect the determination that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with RED BULL in which the Complainant has trademark rights (see also Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. ...
2013-05-23 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.4 The Panel accepts that the Domain Names can be most sensible read as the term “Shred”, combined with the words “news” and “clothing” and the “.com” Top-Level Domain. ...D2009-0227), the Panel finds that each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to a trade mark or marks in which the Complainant has rights. In the circumstances the Complainant has made out the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2013-03-28 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided evidence of ownership of, among others, trademark registrations for PORSCHE, CAYENNE, BOXSTER, and CAYMAN.
...In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2012-05-01 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided evidence of ownership of, among others, trademark registrations for PORSCHE, CAYENNE, BOXSTER, and CAYMAN.
...In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2012-05-01 - Case Details
UDRP panels have consistently held that domain names are generally treated as identical or confusingly similar to a Trademark for the purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the Trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name,” and where the trademark is recognizable within the domain name. ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trademark. The Panel therefore holds that the Complaint fulfills the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2012-05-14 - Case Details
UDRP panels have consistently held that domain names are generally treated as identical or confusingly similar to a Trademark for the purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the [T]rademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name,” and where the trademark is recognizable within the domain name. ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trademark. The Panel therefore holds that the Complaint fulfills the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2012-05-14 - Case Details
UDRP panels have consistently held that domain names are generally treated as identical or confusingly similar to a Trademark for the purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the Trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name,” and where the trademark is recognizable within the domain name. ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trademark. The Panel therefore holds that the Complaint fulfills the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2012-05-14 - Case Details