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
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
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
On the substance, the Panel decides as follows:
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the following three elements is present:
(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark; and
(ii) the 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 in bad faith.
The Panel will therefore deal with each of these requirements in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The top level “.com” of the disputed domain name is to be ignored for the purposes of assessing confusingly similarity as it is a functional requirement of the domain name system, which is the common view of UDRP panels and held been decided in earlier cases such as DHL Operations B.V. v. ...
2011-08-31 - 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
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
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
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
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
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
It is quite evident that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark and trade name of Complainant in which Complainant has rights. The only difference concerns the domain name denominator, but this circumstance is irrelevant.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element to be proved by Complainant is that Complainant has rights over a trademark or service mark. ...
2011-06-08 - 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
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
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
In the light of this, Complainant contends that the relevant part of the domain name at issue is "nokia" and that the domain name "nokias.com" is clearly confusingly similar to the trademark owned by Complainant.
As regards legitimate interest in the domain name, Complainant alleges that Respondent has no business or other connection or affiliation with Complainant. ...Decision
On the basis of the foregoing considerations the Administrative Panel concludes that the domain name "nokias.com" is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark "Nokia," that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name and that Respondent’s domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2000-10-26 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the two domain names registered by the Respondent are confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered trademark rights and to the various domain names owned by the Complainant.
...Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that:
(i) The Domain Name is 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 Domain Name; and
(iii) The Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2004-05-03 - Case Details
Complainant
In summary, the Complainant contends as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant has used and promoted its MICHELIN trademark for more than a century and owns
numerous corresponding trademark registrations worldwide. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are each confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s MICHELIN mark and that the Complainant has carried its burden in terms of paragraph 4(a)(i)
of the Policy.
...
2022-06-20 - Case Details