Park Kwangsoo,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0167 ( confusingly similar to Complainant’s SONY mark).
The words “service” and “services” are generic or descriptive here. ...The Panel concludes that each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark and that Complainant has established the first element of its case.
...
2007-12-10 - Case Details
Yeteck Communication, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0055 (“aolcasino” found confusingly similar to AOL mark); Revlon Consumer Products Corporation v. Laurent D. Morel,
WIPO Case No. ...Substantial authority exists to the effect that registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a famous trademark by any entity that has no relationship to that mark is itself sufficient evidence of bad faith registration and use. ...
2007-12-10 - Case Details
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 names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's PUBLIC STORAGE mark, in which the Complainant has established rights through registration and continuous and extensive use. ...The Respondent, lacking any connection to the Complainant, has registered and used multiple confusingly similar domain names to drive Internet traffic to what by all appearances is a pay-per-click advertising website. ...
2009-08-11 - Case Details
D2007-1228.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Policy simply requires the Complainant to demonstrate that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks as the LAFAYETTE trademark is fully incorporated within the Domain Name and comprises the dominant portion thereof. ...
2009-09-17 - Case Details
The Panel will therefore deal with each of these requirements in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainants must first establish that there is a trademark or service mark in which it has rights. ...Therefore, the Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Complainants' trademark DR. MARTENS.
Accordingly, the Complainants have made out the first of the three elements that it must establish.
...
2009-11-24 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, does Complainant have rights in a relevant mark and, second, is the Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to that mark.
...Dolce Hotels,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0269 (holding is confusingly similar to DOLCE); The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. v. Rodney Thomas,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0259 (holding is confusingly similar to THE BOSTON CONSULTING GROUP).
...
2009-07-07 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...To this end, prior UDRP panels have established that attracting Internet traffic by using a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark may be evidence of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP (see Edmunds.com, Inc. v. ...
2009-10-23 - Case Details
The Panel considers each element in order.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant must first establish that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s service mark.
...D2000-1677 (“Coca Cola” and “cocacoladrinks” held confusingly similar); America Online, Inc. v. Anson Chan,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0004, citing Sporty’s Farm LLC. v. ...
2007-07-10 - Case Details
Even if the disputed domain names are not exactly identical to the registered trademarks, it is clear that they are confusingly similar since each of them contains distinctive elements of the Complainant’s relevant trademarks.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name is a combination of two of the Complainant’s registered trademarks (AIRBUS and A340). ...
2007-06-22 - Case Details
Upon considering the above, the Panel decides to accept the Complainant’s request and rules that English be the language of proceedings.
B. 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.
...Also, by registering several domain names that are confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks, Respondent has prevented Complainant from reflecting its marks in corresponding domain names. ...
2012-03-01 - Case Details
Jesús Hidalgo Álvarez,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1025).
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant must first establish that there is a trademark or service mark in which it has rights. ...D2000-0167, where the domain name was held to be confusingly similar to the trademark NIKE).
Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar with Complainant’s RED BULL trademark.
...
2012-02-21 - Case Details
Furthermore the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s DINERS CLUB mark as it consists of the entirety of the mark and adding a competitor’s mark MASTERCARD. Therefore, the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s DINERS CLUB trademarks are confusingly similar to each other. See Mastercard International Incorporated v. Indy Web Productions,
WIPO Case No. ...
2011-06-24 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances each of which, if proven, shall demonstrate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) above.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel has no hesitation in finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark LA QUINTA in which the Complainant asserts rights. ...The addition of the suffix “.com” and the elimination of a space between “la” and “quinta” do not detract from the finding that the domain name in dispute is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark LA QUINTA.
The Panel concludes that the domain name in dispute is confusingly similar to the trademark LA QUINTA in which the Complainant has rights, and the first element required for the Complaint to succeed has been established.
...
2011-02-14 - Case Details
In accordance with paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules, and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
UDRP panels have consistently held that domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trade mark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (See Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...In view of the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, in which the Complainant has demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Panel, that it has rights and commercial use of the same for several years.
...
2011-02-14 - Case Details
In accordance with paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules, and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
UDRP panels have consistently held that domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trade mark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (See Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...In the view of the Panel, the adoption by the Respondent of a domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark P90X inevitably leads to confusion on the part of Internet users and consumers seeking information about the Complainant and its products (see further on this point below). ...
2011-02-14 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There are two requirements that a complainant must establish under this paragraph; that it has rights in a trade or service mark, and that the domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the marks.
...The second requirement is that the domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the mark.
The disputed domain names are all confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks and consumers are reasonably likely to be misled into believing that these disputed domain names are associated with the Complainant's names, products, services and ultimately, achievements.
...
2010-03-29 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied when a complainant is able to prove two necessary elements: first, that the complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark, and second, that the domain name in dispute is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark on which the complainant relies.
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent's Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's CANTOR marks, and therefore the condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) is fulfilled.
...
2010-07-20 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's marks, as they incorporate the Complainant’s marks as a whole as the distinctive part of the domain names. ...Upon considering the above, the Panel decides to accept the Complainant’s request and rules that English be the language of proceedings.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2010-10-27 - Case Details
Upon considering the above, the Panel decides to accept the Complainant’s request and rules that English be the language of proceedings.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...To this end, prior UDRP panels have established that attracting Internet traffic by using a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark may be evidence of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP in cases where such use is illegitimate.
...
2010-10-27 - Case Details
The Panel will therefore deal with each of these requirements in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant must first establish that there is a trademark or service mark in which it has rights. ...D2000-0167, where the domain name was held to be confusingly similar to the trademark nike; Lime Wire LLC v. David Da Silva/Contactprivacy.com,
WIPO Case No. ...
2010-10-27 - Case Details