Respondent
Respondent did not file a reply to Complainants’ contentions in this proceeding.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This Panel must first determine whether is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainants have rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...This Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainants have rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2018-04-03 - Case Details
This includes the acceptance of plausible evidence of the Complainant which has not been disputed.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has registered rights in the mark GGDB.
The Panel further finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to this mark, from which it differs only in the addition of the word "scarpe" and the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") suffix, ".net". ...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Domain Name is obviously confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark and such as to lead Internet users to suppose that it locates a website of the Complainant selling its products. ...
2017-10-02 - Case Details
Programmer, Miss Kathy Beckerson, John Smitt, Matthew Simmons,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0281.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Marks. ...D2000-1259 (“Respondent’s typosquatting, by its definition, renders the domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark”).
The Complainant has met its burden of proof under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2017-11-23 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This Panel must first determine whether is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph (4)(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2018-07-10 - Case Details
D2014-0181, finding consolidation appropriate for a parent and wholly-owned subsidiaries.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This Panel must first determine whether the disputed domain name , is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainants have rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainants have rights in accordance with paragraph (4)(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2018-06-12 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established its registered rights in the ACCU-CHEK and ACCU-CHEK SUGARVIEW trademarks.
...D2014-0743, “Where a domain name includes an identical match to a complainant’s mark, a complainant has satisfied the burden of proving that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy”.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. ...
2019-01-25 - Case Details
Indeed, the addition of the term “flights” here actually affirms the confusingly similar nature of the disputed domain name as it describes the Complainant’s services offered under the FAREPORTAL mark. ...Consequently, the Panel finds the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the FAREPORTAL trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2020-05-04 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark.
...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finds the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith.
The confusingly similar disputed domain name resolves to a website apparently offering services similar to Complainant’s services. ...
2021-05-21 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SEW registered trade mark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and that the Domain Name has been registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith.
...B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
While the Policy is not in all respects identical to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”), the two policies are sufficiently similar for it to be useful to refer where appropriate to the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). ...
2021-05-27 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in the SPIZOO trade mark, based on its trade mark registration in the United States which indicates that the Complainant has been using the SPIZOO trade mark since as early as June 29, 2008.
...The Panel therefore finds that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SPIZOO trade mark, and accordingly, paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2020-03-27 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has shown that it holds several registrations for the trademark EASYBANK. Previous UDRP panels have held that a domain name containing the abbreviation of a complainant’s trademark can be confusingly similar to that trademark (see e.g., Harness Racing Australia v. Acronym Wiki Pty Ltd,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-04-09 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant submits that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trade name Cloetta Holland B.V. and to the trademark CLOETTA as “cloetta” is the distinctive part of the Domain Name. ...Many decisions under the Regulations have found that a domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trade name and trademark where the domain name incorporates the distinctive part or entirety of the trade name or the trademark. ...
2020-10-16 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Marks.
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ACCORHOTELS mark. Additionally, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to each the Complainant’s Marks because the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s mark ACCOR followed by the dictionary terms “hotels” and “beinvenue” (a misspelling of “bienvenue”).
...
2019-10-01 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Each disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s NATIONWIDE BANK trademark with an “a” omitted and in the case of the second and third disputed domain name, an “s” inserted before the “b”. ...For these reasons, the Panel concludes all three disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s NATIONWIDE BANK trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is not called “Nationwide Bank” or anything similar. ...
2019-05-28 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first three disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s FACEBOOK trademark, which through its use and recognition has become famous, in that they contain that famous mark attached to English words (“marketing” and “pro”) or another of Complainant’s trademarks (“INSTAGRAM”). The final four of the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s well known INSTAGRAM trademark attached to common English words: “ads”, “followers”, “marketing”, and “pro”. ...
2022-01-06 - Case Details
This difference is not significant and the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark.
According to the Complainant, the Respondent has no rights or interests in the disputed domain name. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is obviously confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. ...
2012-01-03 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has provided real estate listings and homes for sale since 1998. Complainant owns Swedish and CTM registrations containing HEMNET. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the HEMNET mark and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. Complainant has established the first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2012-11-21 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks PORSCHE and PORSCHE DESIGN, the registration and use of which by the Complainant long precede the registration of the disputed domain name.
...Having considered all the circumstances, this Panel determines under the Rules, paragraph 11(a) that English shall be the language of the proceeding.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), a complainant must prove that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights. ...
2012-12-24 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it is the registered proprietor of numerous UK and Community registered trademarks which include the term “Barclay”, including BARCLAYS and BARCLAYBANK, for services including banking and financial services. ...The distinctive part of the Domain Name is “‘barclaysbank” which in the view of the Panel is undoubtedly confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks and would be likely to be understood by Internet users to refer to those marks. ...
2012-06-15 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has provided sufficient evidence of its rights in the CLARITIN Mark and, less relevant, of its rights in the CLARITIN Family of Marks.
...For all these reasons, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the CLARITIN Mark. Consequently, the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2012-06-07 - Case Details