Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant plainly has registered rights in a mark, BAAZI, that is wholly contained within the Domain
Name, remaining recognisable within it. ...UDRP panels have consistently found that registration of a
domain name that is confusingly similar to a well-known trade mark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself
create a presumption of bad faith (WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 3.1.4).
...
2023-09-04 - Case Details
page 4
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has adduced evidence to demonstrate its established rights in
the SIMPLE MODERN mark.
...Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark.
Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2023-10-25 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant's contentions are as follows.
A. 1 Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided evidence of the registration of the Trade Mark. The Complainant claims the word "pixers" is a fancy name invented by its founders specifically for the purposes of the Complainant's business activity. ...However, a panel may draw appropriate inferences from a respondent's default.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.
...
2015-09-28 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in the trade mark KAUFLAND by virtue of its use and registration worldwide of the same as a trademark. ...It is trite that the addition of the gTLD is typically irrelevant when determining whether disputed domain names are confusingly similar to a complainant's trade marks. The Panel thus agrees with the Complainant's submission that the ".wang" gTLD appended to the trade mark KAUFLAND in the Disputed Domain Name does not assist to distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from the trade mark KAUFLAND. ...
2015-12-03 - Case Details
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark.
The Complainant maintains that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. ...International Electronic Communications Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s NETBSD mark. ...
2015-08-04 - Case Details
On the basis of the evidence introduced by the Complainant, the Panel concludes as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in MICHELIN by virtue of its use and registration of the same as a trade mark.
...The addition of the generic Top-Level-Domain (“gTLD”) “.在线” and “.fun” does not impact on the analysis of whether the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark in this case.
Consequently, the Panel finds that each of the disputed domain names is identical to the Complainant’s trade mark.
...
2018-12-06 - Case Details
The Respondent, by registering the Disputed Domain Name, that incorporates the Complainant’s FLYING TIGER trademark in its entirety and that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademark, as well as its domain name, has demonstrated a knowledge of and familiarity with the Complainant’s brand and business.
...Previous UDRP panels have acknowledged that incorporation of a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark, see e.g. Britannia Building Society v. Britannia Fraud Prevention,
WIPO Case No. ...
2018-12-03 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
(i) Identical or confusingly similar
Complainant states that the name GEOGEBRA is strongly associated with Complainant and its educational software by members of the public and that Complainant has global renown. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated it has well established trademark rights in its GEOGEBRA marks. ...
2016-09-23 - Case Details
The purpose of the Respondent’s website appears to create an association with the Complainant by attempting to take undue advantage from the registration of the disputed domain names which are confusingly similar in all aspects with the Complainant’s trademark.
The Complainant further alleges that the disputed domain names were registered and used in bad faith. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well established that the TLD may typically be disregarded in the assessment under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy (e.g., Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2016-12-23 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent denies that the Domain Name should be transferred to the Complainant for the following reasons:
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Respondent is a professional software design house which is well known in the wireless/software industry. ...B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The threshold test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trade mark and the domain name itself to determine likelihood of Internet user confusion. ...
2016-08-09 - Case Details
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules directs the Panel to decide the complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
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.
There are two parts to this inquiry: the Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark and, if so, the disputed domain name must be shown to be identical or confusingly similar to the trademark.
The Complainant has proven ownership of a number of registered trademarks for BAGLEY alone and many others where the word is included in a registered trademark for what appears to be the packaging for different lines of biscuit or other products which the Complainant produces. ...
2016-07-19 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to divest the Respondent of the disputed domain names, the Complainant must demonstrate each of the following:
(i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and
(iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
...The Panel will accept the late submission in order to allow the Respondent defense in this case.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There is no dispute that the Complainant has trademark rights in SPORTSDIRECT, nor is there any dispute that the disputed domain names , , , , and are confusingly similar to the trademark SPORTSDIRECT if one discounts the gTLDs ".club", ".online", ".site", ".space", ".website" and ".xyz" as is typically done for the purposes of the first element analysis.
...
2016-07-18 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which it has rights. It states that each of the disputed domain names incorporates the whole of its mark VALENTINO together with the non-distinctive additions "2u", "stores", "shoesale" and "4u". ...Those elements are:
(i) that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and
(iii) that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
...
2016-07-15 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trade mark YOIGO, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the Domain Name and that the Domain Name was registered and being used in bad faith. ...Having considered all the circumstances of this case, the Panel determines that English be the language of the proceeding.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has clearly established rights to the trade mark YOIGO. ...
2016-02-22 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark CORALIFE; the only difference is the adjunction of the suffix “.com”.
...D2005-0457) it does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar; indeed the suffix is a necessary component of the domain name and does not give any distinctiveness.
...
2016-02-18 - Case Details
Complainant
The Domain Name is identical and/or confusingly similar to the Marks. It combines Complainant's famous mark SPORTSDIRECT in its entirety with the new generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) ".online". ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated its rights in the mark SPORTSDIRECT by virtue of its Registration No. 2597152B (registered August 3, 2012) in the UK. ...
2016-01-14 - Case Details
A1. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights:
The trade mark ZENTIVA does not have any particular meaning and is therefore highly distinctive. ...On the basis of the evidence introduced by the Complainant, the Panel concludes as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in ZENTIVA by virtue of its use and registration worldwide of the same as a trade mark. ...
2016-03-10 - Case Details
In light of these circumstances, the Panel concludes that it will (1) proceed in line with the Center’s preliminary acceptance of the Complaint as filed in English; and (2) issue a decision in English.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant mark and, second, is the Disputed Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to that mark.
...Thus, it is well established that such element may be typically disregarded when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. Proactiva Medio Ambiente, S.A. v. Proactiva,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0182.
...
2016-05-11 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has registered rights in the Snapchat Trade Marks, based on its registrations in several different jurisdictions, including in the United States and the European Union.
...It is also well established that in making an enquiry as to whether a trade mark is identical or confusingly similar to a domain name, the generic Top-Level Domain extensions, in this case “.me”, “.co” and “.org”, may be disregarded (see Rohde & Schwarz GmbH & Co. ...
2017-06-08 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is, according to the submitted evidence, the owner of the registered trademarks DANDERYDS CENTRUM and DANDERYD CENTRUM. ...Having the above in mind, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks and that the Complainant has proved the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2017-06-06 - Case Details