Thus, the Panel will deal with each of the requirements in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The entirety of both TEREA and ILUMA marks of the Complainant are reproduced within the disputed
domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks for
the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
...
2024-07-04 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.
...B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2010-03-03 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's GOOGLE trademark. The Complainant argues that the domain name entirely incorporates the GOOGLE trademark, which is also the only distinctive element of this domain name since the terms “my” and “money” are only dictionary words.
...Dariusz Herman, Herman DOMCREATE et co.,
WIPO Case No. DNAME2004-0001).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established trademark rights in the term GOOGLE. Therefore, it is clear that the disputed domain name is not identical to any of the Complainant's trademarks.
...
2009-04-02 - Case Details
Furthermore, the Respondent asserts that the domain name is not confusingly similar to the LEASEPLAN Marks as such marks incorporate a descriptive term and minor differences are sufficient to eliminate a finding of confusing similarity.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Respondent contends that the Complainant’s trademarks are generic or descriptive and therefore unenforceable under the Policy. ...
2008-05-30 - Case Details
The Complainant’s mark is only for “jet2”, which is not confusingly similar to “jet2ski”.
(2) The Respondent has a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Respondent contends that the Complainant does not own trademark rights under the Policy because its mark is generic, or at best descriptive of its services. ...
2008-04-03 - Case Details
Complainants present evidence that the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical to or confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainants have rights. Complainants state that the domain name is confusingly similar to the famous QVC mark. ...The Panel proceeds to deal with each of these elements in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Many prior UDRP panels have found that a domain name that wholly incorporates the complainant's registered mark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2009-05-14 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant’s
LOTO Marks in which the Complainant has exclusive rights. ...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 a geographical
identifier (cf. ...
2007-05-09 - Case Details
Despite that, the Complainant says the Respondent adopted a domain name confusingly similar to and both of which were subsequently registered in August 2006.
5.A.11 Finally, the Complainant refers to the “cease and desist” letter from its lawyers to the Respondent dated December 15, 2006. ...b) sets out circumstances which, again in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.
6.4 Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.4.1 Here there is no doubt that, if – as pleaded – the Complainant has rights in MARITIME-ONTARIO as a trademark, the domain name is confusingly similar. ...
2007-05-07 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain names fully incorporate the Complainant's well-known NOKIA Marks in which the Complainant has exclusive rights.
...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 common or generic words (cf. ...
2010-01-19 - Case Details
Furthermore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is substantially identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark SANPAOLO IMI despite the addition of the generic top-level domain “.mobi”. ...It is well-established practice to disregard the top-level part of a domain name, when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark in issue. Société Anonyme des Eaux Minerales d'Evian v. Beroca Holdings B.V.I. ...
2010-01-08 - Case Details
The Complainant further argues that: (i) it has trademark rights over the mark ZYNGA; (ii) the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the ZYNGA mark; (iii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the ZYNGA mark; and (iv) the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith.
...The Complainant argues that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its own ZYNGA mark: “Because Respondent's Domain Names reflect Complainant's coined and arbitrary Mark in its entirety, with the addition of non-distinctive elements such as CHIPS (which merely reinforce the association of ZYNGA with Complainant), the Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant's ZYNGA Mark.”
...
2009-08-10 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant’s highly distinctive and well-established DURACELL Mark in which the Complainant has exclusive rights.
...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 common or generic words, such as “drink” (cf. ...
2011-03-31 - Case Details
These elements are discussed as follows.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant provides copies of registration certificates, evidencing the registration of its EVEL KNIEVEL mark in Canada, and on the principal register of the USPTO. ...For these reasons, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The suggestion from the Respondent's correspondence is that it might claim rights or legitimate interests based on operating the “Evel Knievel Museum” in Niagra Falls Ontario. ...
2010-05-27 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant argues the following:
I. Identical or Confusingly Similar
- That it is a subsidiary of Goupe Danone.
- That Groupe Danone is the leader in the international market of fresh dairy products, especially in Western Europe where Groupe Danone realizes 8.2 billion Euros of revenue...The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark DANUP.
Said domain name is also confusingly similar to the trademark DAN’UP. The elimination of the apostrophe in the domain name is not relevant (see Fry’s Electronics Inc. v. ...
2008-03-31 - Case Details
Finally, Respondent states that he registered his site with an Internet parking service to generate very modest revenues to help defray his costs of maintaining the registration until he could place content on the website for personal use.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel agrees with Complainant that Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks.
...The Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using a domain name which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, for the purpose of attracting Internet users for commercial gain.
...
2008-03-27 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the trademark SYLVANIA, by reason of its ownership of various United States trademark registrations including No. 434,729.
...D2000-1511 (inclusion in the domain names of generic wording along with the trademark TELSTRA found confusingly similar). The likelihood of confusion is exacerbated by the inclusion of the term “Osram” that is part of Complainant’s corporate and trade name.
...
2008-03-25 - Case Details
The Complainant therefore submits that (A) the domain names are confusingly similar to marks in which it has rights; (B) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names; (C) the domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
...The Panel arrives therefore at the conclusion that all the twenty domain names of are confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
In connection with hotel services, offered both by the Complainant and on the websites to which the Respondent links the disputed domain names, the term “MERIDIEN” is a well-known mark of the Complainant and not a descriptive term. ...
2006-01-18 - Case Details
The Panel has already found the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the trade mark. The Panel finds that the likelihood of confusion as to source is therefore highly likely. ...FA125227 (redirecting users for a commission is using a confusingly similar domain name for commercial benefit, which is evidence of bad faith)....
2009-02-18 - Case Details
The grounds put forward by the Complainant are as follows:
(a) Allegation that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark.
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has registered a domain name which consists of the identical trademark of the Complainant RELIGION NEWS SERVICE, which has led to customer confusion.
...The Response asserts that the domain name in dispute is not identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's Principal Register mark.
The Response asserts that the Complainant does not have enforceable trademark rights to terms that are disclaimed in a trademark.
...
2008-12-19 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is given in the present case:
(1) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's INPI Marks as it incorporates the Complainant's acronym “INPI” in its entirety...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant's distinctive INPI Marks in which the Complainant has rights and is therefore confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks nos. 3449071 and 532435 and identical to the Complainant's trademark no. 3449074.
...
2008-12-09 - Case Details