A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The crucial point of this case seems to be whether the Complainant actually holds rights in a trademark or service mark for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...For the purpose of assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, the suffix “com” must be disregarded as being simply a necessary component of a generic top level domain name.
...
2008-08-01 - Case Details
Each of the aforesaid three elements must be proved by a complainant to warrant relief.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant’s TITONI trademark is registered at the China Trademark Office. See Factual Background, supra. ...Respondent argues that the disputed domain name is not confusingly similar to the trademark because he proposes to use it in a different line of commerce than Complainant. ...
2008-07-29 - Case Details
It then says that it is self-evident that the domain name is both identical and confusingly similar to the BASF trademark as it incorporates the trademark as a whole and that the domain name suggests that it is somehow connected with the BASF trademark or authorized by the Complainant, neither of which is true.
...The Panel will therefore deal with each of these requirements in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the domain name is identical to the BASF trademark. That is so because the domain name consists of the totality of the BASF trademark without any changes or additions.
...
2008-11-07 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its registered FINE ART REGISTRY service mark. The Complainant believes that Park West Gallery is behind the registration and use of the Domain Name and that the registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
...This Decision will refer henceforth to Cartoon Heaven as the Respondent.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant unquestionably holds the registered service mark FINE ART REGISTRY. This mark is incorporated in its entirety in the Domain Name. ...
2008-10-23 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant says it is the holder of all trademark rights related to the name ELVSTROM and ELVSTROM SAILS globally, and has been so for the last three decades.
...Moniker Privacy Services must in the circumstances stand as the Respondent.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which it has rights. ...
2008-06-13 - Case Details
International Electronic Communications Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has presented uncontested evidence of its registration and use of GATEWAY and GATEWAY-formative trademarks in the United States and elsewhere in the world. ...The deliberate registration and use of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s widely known mark to generate advertising revenue does not constitute use of the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. ...
2008-06-09 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant owns trade mark registrations, including international trade mark registrations, in the trade mark PICANOL which precedes the registration of the disputed domain name. ...Therefore, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark PICANOL and the first limb of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2008-09-01 - Case Details
Each of these requirements will be considered in turn below.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has a registered European Community trademark in respect of a logo comprising the name “Proline UK”. ...The Panel considers that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered Community mark. Internet users would naturally assume that a website at “www.prolineuk.com” is connected with the proprietor of the registered “PROLINE UK” logo.
...
2008-07-17 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant owns trade mark registrations, including international trade mark registrations, in the trade mark DANONE which precede the registration of the disputed domain name. ...Therefore, the Panel is of the view that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark DANONE and the first limb of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied. ...
2008-07-10 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar or essentially identical to its trademark EDMONTON JOURNAL. The gTLD identifier “.com” is of no significance in the Internet context. ...The Panel finds the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the trademark EDMONTON JOURNAL in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...
2008-07-10 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant contends that it has established trade names with respect to “Actona Company” and “Actona” through public use and that it has used them regularly since 2001 after changing the name of its company. ...The Panelist finds that the domain name is identical to and that the domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trade name “Actona Company” since the word “Company” is merely descriptive in Complainant's trade name.
...
2009-10-02 - Case Details
Complainants allege the following:
1. The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Mark.
2. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.
3. ...Here, as noted, the first and dominant part of the Mark is identical to the Disputed Domain Name. As such, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Mark within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(1) of the Policy.
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint. ...
2011-05-03 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant's highly distinctive and well-known AMAN Marks in which the Complainant has 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 “hotel” or “group” (cf. ...
2009-11-30 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated that it is the rightful owner of international trademark TAMIFLU + logo No. 727329. ...As a result, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks TAMIFLU owned by the Complainant. Therefore, the Panel considers that the condition set out by paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant.
...
2009-07-13 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it owns the international trademark TAMIFLU + logo n° 727329. ...As a result, the Panel finds that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks TAMIFLU owned by the Complainant. Therefore, the Panel considers that the condition set out by paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant.
...
2009-07-09 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends that the domain name (i) incorporates the well-known LIMEWIRE marks, (ii) merely appends to the term LIMEWIRE the generic term “store”, (iii) is confusingly similar to Complainant’s domain name, and (iv) is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LIMEWIRE’s marks.
...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.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel notes that Complainant’s registered trademark is LIME WIRE, the LIMEWIRE trademark having been registered by an affiliate in the European Union, not in the United States of America. ...
2007-09-05 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant argues that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its VISIONS marks, and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. ...With this finding, it is unnecessary to determine whether the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered VISIONS 1000 and VISIONS 2000 trademarks for purposes of the first Policy element, and it is also unnecessary to consider whether the Complaint can be grounded on design marks that incorporate the word “Visions.”
...
2007-10-25 - Case Details
International Electronic Communications Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar to Trademark Rights
The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s XXXX mark, in which the Complainant beyond question has established rights through registration and use. ...A number of panels have concluded that a respondent has a right to register and use a domain name to attract Internet traffic based on the appeal of a commonly used descriptive phrase, even where the domain name is confusingly similar to the registered mark of a complainant. See National Trust for Historic Preservation v. ...
2007-09-28 - Case Details
Complainant contends, inter alia, the following:
- The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the EARTH REWARDS trademark because the absence of the letter “s” and the addition of the word “my” are “insignificant”...As to whether the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the EARTH REWARDS mark, the relevant comparison to be made is with the second-level portion of the Disputed Domain Name only (i.e., “myearthreward”), as it is well-established that the top-level domain name (i.e., “.com”) should be disregarded for this purpose.
...
2007-11-12 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to trademarks in which Complainant has rights.
The Complainant highlights that Christian Dior Couture uses the trademark CHRISTIAN DIOR all over the world.
...In view of the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2007-08-29 - Case Details