The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is deceptively and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s aforesaid trademark/trade name COX & KINGS as also to its domain names containing the expression “Cox and Kings”. ...The Panel, therefore, concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and the Complainant has therefore succeeded in establishing the first element of the test in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2013-11-15 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.3 The Complainant has registered trade mark rights in at least one word trade mark for the term “Emazing”. The Domain Name takes the form of that term in combination with the “.com” Top-Level Domain. Given this, the Domain Name is clearly confusingly similar, if not identical, to that trade mark. In the circumstances, the Complainant has made out the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2015-09-04 - Case Details
These issues are discussed in turn as follows.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant provides evidence of having a registered trademark for CIRCUS in the Benelux. ...The consensus view as to whether a domain name is identical (or confusingly similar) to a mark is to be judged objectively, against the dominant textual elements of a complainant's mark, rather than graphic or stylized elements. ...
2016-09-16 - Case Details
Respondent
5.8 The Respondent accepts that the Complainant has established a reputation and good will in the names MBE Glazing and MBE Reactive, and that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to those names.
5.9 However, the Respondent claims that it does have a right or legitimate interest in the Domain Names. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.2 The Panel accepts that the Complainant has by reason of its use of the terms “MBE Glazing” and “MBE Reactive” unregistered trade mark rights (or to be more precise rights under the English law of passing off) in respect of these terms. ...
2016-04-05 - Case Details
Australian Trademark laws do not grant the Complainant with domain names, which are ruled by the “First in, First serve” basis.
The Disputed Domain Names are not confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. Different parties can use similar names in Australia with reference to dissimilar activities or business, such as crypto currency trading and social media. ...Accordingly, this Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, and the first element of the Policy under paragraph 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
...
2022-01-12 - Case Details
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainants’ SWISS LIFE
trademarks.
The disputed domain name contains the trademark SWISS LIFE in its entirety. ...Based on the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the SWISS
LIFE trademarks, in which the Complainants have earlier rights, pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2022-10-31 - Case Details
Complainant
In summary, the Complainant contends as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant has rights in its registered trademark and also unregistered rights in the mark
NEOMETALS. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-09-01 - Case Details
Complainant
In summary, the Complainant contends as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant’s affiliate is the owner of the MATAJER registered trademarks. Relationship documents
show that Sharjah Holding’s shareholders are subsidiaries of the Complainant. ...page 5
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element assessment under the Policy is typically conducted in two parts. ...
2023-01-05 - Case Details
WIPO Overview of
WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Overview 3.0), section 3.9 and
section 4.4.6.1
That said, the Panel notes that each of the persons who has communicated with the Center has been on
notice of the Complaint and has taken the opportunity to dispute the Complaint, at least at a summary level.
B. 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 at the
date the Complaint was filed 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 at least the three registered trademarks for BMW identified in
section 4 above. ...
2023-03-22 - Case Details
Complainants
1. The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainants’ META QUEST,
META, and QUEST trade marks in which the Complainants have rights. ...https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 6
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainants have established they have rights in the META QUEST, META, and QUEST trade marks.
...
2023-08-08 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its
trademark MXC, since it reproduces that trademark with the addition of the term “scam”. ...case=D2021-1967
page 6
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it has registered trademark rights in the mark MXC. ...
2023-09-13 - Case Details
The Panel finds the marks are recognizable within the disputed domain name.
Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the marks for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-03-18 - Case Details
In the circumstances of this case, bearing in mind that the Response was prepared and attempted to be submitted in due time, it was filed immediately after the error was discovered and within 24 hours of the due date, before the Panel was appointed and the Complainant has not identified any relevant prejudice it has suffered, the Panel admits the Response into the record in this administrative proceeding.
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 Benelux Trademark No. 1004796 for JDM as discussed in Section 4 above.
...
2017-09-01 - Case Details
The Complainant has produced advertisements and articles in newspapers concerning its products, and also a decision of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore confirming a lower Court’s injunction against Shri Sukhsagar Hotel, preventing the latter from carrying on business under its trade name and style as a result of being deceptively similar to the Complainant’s trading style Sukhsagar Enterprises.
The Complainant maintains that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks in which it has rights.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the mark SUKHSAGAR and confusingly similar if not identical to the mark SUKH SAGAR in both of which marks the Complainant has shown it has rights. ...
2007-12-14 - Case Details
The disputed domain names are identical or at least confusingly similar thereto.
Respondent has never made any legitimate use of PNEUS ONLINE as a trademark, trade name or company name. ...D2003-0447 and the decisions quoted therein), the Panel declines to admit Complainant’s supplemental filings.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires that Complainant demonstrates that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights.
...
2011-10-07 - Case Details
Secondly, the Complainant must show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the rights established.
It is important to note in the present context that this is a different inquiry to that prescribed by trademark law. ...The second requirement is that the disputed domain name be identical or confusingly similar to the relevant rights proved by the Complainant.
That requirement is satisfied here as the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's name, but with the second level domain (2LD), “.com.au”, added. ...
2009-05-27 - Case Details
Bearing these rules in mind, the Panel now proceeds to consider whether the Complaint satisfies the requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, bearing in mind that each needs to be fulfilled before the Complaint can succeed.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant must show that the Respondent’s domain name
“(…) is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights”.
...The Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Complainant is required to show that the Respondent has “no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name”. ...
2008-07-25 - Case Details
The dispute is properly within the scope of the Policy and the Panel has jurisdiction to decide the dispute.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant must prove that it has rights in a trademark, whether registered or otherwise. ...The Complainant must then prove that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. The Respondent asserts that it is not. The disputed domain name is , of which the gTLD component “.com” may be disregarded in the assessment of confusing similarity. ...
2009-12-18 - Case Details
The next question is whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade marks. It does not appear that there is any assertion by the Complainants that there is identity, although as a matter of fact the word “SHAW” does recur in each of the Complainants’ marks. ...However, the circumstances outlined in paragraph 4(b)((iv) appear to arise, in that the disputed domain name is clearly confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks and there is an offering of various services on the website and/or links to other sites.. ...
2011-01-19 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name consists of the HOLIDEX Mark in its entirety, plus the top level domain “.com”.
...The presence of the “.com” gTLD is of no significance
when determining whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to
a complainant’s trademark: see CBS Broadcasting Inc. v. Worldwide Webs,
Inc; WIPO Case No. ...
2004-09-29 - Case Details