A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided evidence of Yell Limited’s ownership of the Monaco registered trademark for the word mark HIBU. ...In these circumstances, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy have been satisfied.
...
2012-10-09 - Case Details
UDRP panels have consistently held that domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark for 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” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Trade Marks and holds that the Complaint fulfills the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2012-11-20 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainants must prove each of the following:
(i) that the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service in which the Complainants have rights; and
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainants have trademark rights for INVENTA. This conclusion is supported by:
i) the Complainants’ trademark registrations constituted by INVENTA with the addition of device elements and/or the descriptive words as “International” and “Internacional” (listed in the factual sections), where the core of the trademarks is constituted by the sign INVENTA. ...
2012-11-07 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant alleges that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its FRED ELSBERRY mark, because it merely adds an insignificant top-level domain, conveys a false impression of sponsorship by Complainant, and can be mistakenly typed by Internet users looking for Complainant’s website. ...However, for the reasons discussed below, this Panel’s Decision renders moot Respondent’s request for leave to file its own responsive submission.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant must prove that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights. ...
2012-08-10 - Case Details
In view of the change of registrant details and the uncertainty surrounding the identity of the registrant, the Panel deems appropriate to designate all of the above named entities as the Respondent in the present proceedings.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element that needs to be established is whether the Complainant has rights in a term to which the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar.
...The second element that needs to be considered is whether the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the term “ig markets” in which the Complainant has rights.
The Domain Name consists of the term “ig market” and the gTLD suffix “.net”. ...
2013-06-19 - Case Details
In the Complainant’s view, the Domain Names are identical and confusingly similar to its GROUPAMA trademark, and the addition of the prefix “www-” does not mitigate the confusion and will have no impact on the overall impression of the dominant part of the name GROUPAMA. ...“Although a panel may draw appropriate inferences from a respondent’s default (e.g., to regard factual allegations which are not inherently implausible as being true), paragraph 4 of the UDRP requires the complainant to support its assertions with actual evidence in order to succeed in a UDRP proceeding.”3
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To satisfy the first UDRP element, a domain name must be “identical or confusingly similar” to a trademark, in which a complainant has rights. ...
2014-04-03 - Case Details
Discussion and findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain names and
are not identical to the mark KRONE HIT RADIO of the Complainant. ...Consequently, the domain names and are confusingly similar to the mark KRONE HIT RADIO of the Complainant within the understanding of the UDRP.
...
2004-11-04 - Case Details
The Panel must decide whether the Complainant has introduced elements of proof,
which allow the Panel to conclude that its allegations are true.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is established case law that where a domain name
incorporates a complainant’s registered mark, this is sufficient to establish
that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar for the purposes of
the Policy. ...In view of this, the Panel finds that the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark EPITAN in which the Complainant has well-established and valuable rights.
...
2005-05-18 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant mainly submits the following:
(i) The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark "CLUB MED"; the said domain name is also identical or confusingly similar to the "CLUB MEDITERRANEE" mark.
...Like in WIPO Case D2000-1350 cited above, the Sole Panelist considers here that "clubmed.net" is also confusingly similar to the CLUB MEDITERRANEE" mark since people in the public are likely to associate it with the trademark.
...
2001-02-02 - Case Details
Identity or Confusing Similarity
Complainant contends that the domain name at issue is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks, the only difference being the collocation of the letters "a" and "e". ...Identity or Confusing Similarity
In this respect, Complainant has, according to Paragraph 4a(i) of the Policy, to prove that the domain name at issue is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark in which Complainant has rights.
The domain name at issue is "www.kvearner.com".
...
2001-04-02 - Case Details
In support of this assertion, the Complaint states that the Respondent has registered the disputed names because they are identical and/or confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks in order to attract visitors otherwise intending to visit Complainant’s website. ...D2000-553
6.2 The Panel turns next to the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy which the Complainant must prove in order to obtain relief.
6.3 Domain names identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.
With respect to the domain name "wral-tv5.com", the Panel finds that this is identical to the mark "WRAL-TV5" owned by the Complainant. ...
2001-01-29 - Case Details
You are required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that a third party (a "complainant") asserts to the applicable Provider, in compliance with the Rules of Procedure, that
(i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...In addition, the Administrative Panel finds that these domain names are confusingly similar to those trademark registrations.
Respondent’s Rights or Legitimate Interests in the Domain Names
7.4 The Respondent has not filed any response in this case. ...
2001-09-28 - Case Details
Parties’ Allegations
Complainant claims that the domain name is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, as it is nothing more than the SANDS
trademark with a descriptive designation added at the end. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar to Complainant’s Trademarks
Respondent argues that, because the Caribbean is associated with beaches,
is not identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s SANDS trademarks. ...
2001-12-14 - Case Details
D2000-0104, the Panel concluded that the domain name eautomotive.com
was confusingly similar to the trademark EAUTO, because the domain name incorporated
in its entirety a registered trademark which was entitled to a rebuttable presumption
of distinctiveness. ...Decision
The Administrative Panel finds that the domain name catmachines.com is confusingly similar to the trademarks CAT and CATERPILLAR of the Complainant, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name and that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2000-05-26 - Case Details
Domain name is identical
or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant
has rights
As set out above, the Complainant
is the registered proprietor of the trademark FORTUM in the European Union.
...The Panel finds that the
domain name is identical to the Complainant’s registered
trademark FORTUM and it is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s device mark
"FORTUM".
No legitimate rights or
interest in the disputed domain name
The Policy outlines (paragraph
4(c)) circumstances which, if found by the Panel to be proved, shall demonstrate
the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interest in the domain name. ...
2002-07-09 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
6.1 Elements to be proved
To succeed, the Complainant must establish under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy that
i) the said Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which it has rights;
ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the said Domain Name; and
iii) the said Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent.
6.2 Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant claims rights in the unregistered service marks "MAGNUM" "4D" and "MAGNUM 4D". ...When compared with the registered service mark "MAGNUM-ENE", the said Domain Name is confusingly similar. The second level domain (SLD) is also identical to the Complainant's common law mark "MAGNUM 4D".
6.3 Respondent's rights or legitimate interests in the said Domain Name
The Complainant asserts that it has not given any consent to the Respondent to use its marks as part of the said Domain Name. ...
2002-07-31 - Case Details
Complainants
The Complainants submit
the following:
(i) The Respondent's
domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the PRO DIVE mark.
The Complainants have rights
in the PRO DIVE mark and a substantial reputation in their PRO DIVE mark, both
in Australia and Europe.
The use of the lower case
format and the addition of the ".com" are not significant in determining
whether the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark (see,
inter alia, CBS Broadcasting Inc. v. Worldwide Webs, Inc., WIPO
Case No. ...
2004-04-19 - Case Details
Therefore, so the argument goes, it is "not possible" for the Domain Name to be "confusingly similar" to any trademark of the Complainant.
7.18 This sort of argument has been raised before a number of previous panels.
...However, as in Olymp Bezner it is not necessary to decide this issue
in this case.
7.19 When determining whether or not a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark, the ".com" suffix which denotes the generic top-level domain name, or gTLD, may be ignored. ...
2004-04-29 - Case Details
It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, where appropriate, will
decide consistent with the consensus views captured therein.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-05-07 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its rights because
it incorporates its NATIXIS and NATIXIS COFICINE trademarks in their entirety.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-02-18 - Case Details