Complainant
The Complainant alleges that the contentious domain name is confusingly similar to the AMERICAN FUNDS mark, for it merely omits the letter “e” from the trademark but otherwise reproduces it verbatim.
...The Panel will therefore deal with each of these requirements in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the contentious domain name is confusingly similar to the AMERICAN FUNDS mark. ...
2007-08-24 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
In order to prevail, Complainant must prove, as to the disputed domain name, that:
(i) It is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainants have rights.
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to it.
...Complainant has also established that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its SUNSPOTS mark. The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's mark in its entirety, adding the term “media center,” along with the top level domain “.com.”
...
2010-05-04 - Case Details
The Respondent's Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
2 The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
3. ...Robert McGowan,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0383.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has registered trademark rights in G-STAR. The Panel is satisfied that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's G-STAR trademark in that the dominant component of the Domain Name is the word “gstar” and the words “onsale” and the top level domain “.com” in the Domain Name are not distinctive.
...
2010-04-28 - Case Details
Parties Contentions
5.A Complainants
Identical or Confusingly Similar
5.A.1 The Complainants say that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to their RAPID SHARE trademarks for three reasons. ...That is, the Policy expressly recognizes that other circumstances can be evidence relevant to the requirements of paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and (iii) of the Policy.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.5 The Complainants have demonstrated that they have rights in the registered trademark RAPID SHARE.
6.6. ...
2010-06-17 - Case Details
Parties contention
5.A Complainants
Identical or Confusingly Similar
5.A.1 The Complainants say that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to their RAPID SHARE trademarks for three reasons. ...That is, the Policy expressly recognizes that other circumstances can be evidence relevant to the requirements of paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and (iii) of the Policy.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.5 The Complainants have demonstrated that they have rights in the registered trademark RAPID SHARE.
6.6. ...
2010-06-16 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain names fully incorporate the Complainant’s PARTOUCHE 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, such as “casino”, “casinos” and “poker tour” (See i.e..Microgaming Software Systems Limited v. ...
2011-01-04 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s PREMIER trademark because the disputed domain name is composed of the element “premier” in association with the descriptive element “card”. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
On the evidence before this Panel, the Complainant has established rights in the PREMIER mark through its registration and use of the PREMIER mark in relation to bank card services.
...
2011-05-23 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the burden of proof lies with Complainant to show each of the following three elements: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith.
...However, this is not necessary given that Complainant owns United States Registrations for the BEYONCÉ trademark which establish rights in the BEYONCÉ mark prior to the registration date of the Domain Name.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Having determined that Complainant has rights in the mark BEYONCÉ, the next issue is whether the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. ...
2010-10-27 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or at least confusingly similar to its registered NUTRI PACK mark and to its various senior registered and related domain names.
...Further, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s NUTRI PACK mark. They are phonetic equivalents and are nearly identical in appearance. ...
2010-08-23 - Case Details
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking is defined in paragraph 1 of the Rules as meaning “using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name.”
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel adopts the reasoning of the panel in Rosa María Clara Pallarés v. Dennis Heinz,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0548 and finds that the Domain Name is “as close to being identical with the Complainant’s marks as it could be, and it certainly is confusingly similar to those marks.”
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
In light of the Panel’s finding under the next head, it is unnecessary for the Panel to address this issue.
...
2010-08-23 - Case Details
Furthermore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark SWAROVSKI despite the addition of the generic word “jewellery” (the American spelling for “jewelry”) and the generic top-level domain “.net”.
...It is well established practice to disregard the top-level part of the 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 and Societe des Eaux de Volvic v. ...
2011-02-11 - Case Details
Furthermore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark SWAROVSKI despite the additional hyphen followed by the word “jewelry” and the generic top-level domain “.net”.
...It is well established practice to disregard the top-level part of the 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 and Societe des Eaux de Volvic v. ...
2011-02-11 - Case Details
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 NUMIS mark, in which the Complainant has established rights through registration and use. ...As noted earlier, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark, and the record is convincing that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names with the aim of exploiting and profiting from the Complainant’s mark, impersonating the Complainant and using cloned sites in furtherance of a fraudulent investment scam.
...
2020-06-09 - Case Details
In Knot We Trust LTD,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0340.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar:
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the complainant to show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights. ...The complete inclusion of a registered trademark in a disputed domain name is sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark of the complainant in which it has rights. See, Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...
2020-05-22 - Case Details
Paragraph 5(f) of the Rules establishes that if a respondent does not respond to the Complaint, the Panel’s decision shall be based upon the Complaint.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant showed that it owns several registrations around the world for the trademark IQOS that predate Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name.
...Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark and that the requirements of the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied.
...
2020-05-21 - Case Details
As a result of the extensive use and promotion, the ACCENTURE marks have become distinctive and famous globally and have enjoyed such distinctiveness and notoriety since long prior to the date on which Respondent registered the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ACCENTURE mark. The only difference between them is that the disputed domain name appends the descriptive, geographic abbreviation “us” to the ACCENTURE mark. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is undisputed that Complainant has rights over the ACCENTURE mark.
Since the addition of a generic Top-Level Domain suffix after a domain name is technically required, it is well established that such element may be disregarded where assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark. ...
2020-05-25 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its registered CISCO trademarks and that the Respondent has never had permission to use the mark in the Domain Name or other rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered CISCO trademarks and concludes that the Complaint satisfies the first element of the Policy.
...
2021-08-16 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s WHATSAPP trademark.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the WHATSAPP mark.
...
2021-07-16 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has adduced uncontested convincing evidence that it has rights in the IQOS and HEETS trademarks and service marks thought its ownership of the portfolio of international trademark registrations to which it refers.
...This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights and the Complainant has succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy 4(a)(i).
...
2021-08-24 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s HOTEL INDIGO mark, in which the Complainant has established rights through registration and extensive use. ...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 Complainant’s HOTEL INDIGO mark, in which the Complainant has established rights through registration and use. ...
2021-05-31 - Case Details