The disputed domain name resolves to a website with pay-per-click advertising links for services similar to those offered by Complainant under its METRA mark.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its METRA mark because it reproduces identically and entirely the METRA mark. ...In Knot We Trust LTD,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0340.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Ownership of a nationally registered trademark constitutes prima facie evidence that the complainant has the requisite rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...
2020-06-11 - Case Details
The Panel finds that it is equitable and procedurally efficient to grant the Complainants’ request for consolidation.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element the Complainants must have trade or service mark rights and the Domain Name must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trade or service mark.
...D2011-1227.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainants’ COSTCO Mark. Consequently, the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2020-03-31 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark 伊莱克斯 in which it has rights. ...The site used the Complainant’s trademark 伊莱克斯, as well as a logo Eilaicesx which is confusingly similar to an older version of the Complainant’s ELECTROLUX logo. The site promoted the sale of heaters, ventilators and kitchen supplies, and similar goods are offered by the Complainant. ...
2019-09-16 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its TRADER JOE’S marks because
it is similar in sight, sound, and meaning and incorporates the dominant element “JOE’S” following a noun
signifying a person. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-11-07 - Case Details
Summarizing its legal contentions, Complainant alleges that (1) the disputed domain name is confusingly
similar to Complainant’s trademarks, (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed
domain name, and (3) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, all in
violation of the Policy.
...Michael Robertson, WIPO Case No. D2000-0009).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel agrees with Complainant’s allegation that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s CAMCO mark.
...
2023-06-16 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s
trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant contends that Respondent is not affiliated with or connected to Complainant in any manner. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-11-02 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Although the disputed domain name is not identical to Complainant’s trademarks, the Panel agrees that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the VIBER trademarks.
...The Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered trademarks of Complainant and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are fulfilled.
...
2015-09-29 - Case Details
Further, “it has been widely accepted in domain name disputes that a domain name will still be considered identical to or confusingly similar with a registered trade mark comprising a device, even if the device has not been reproduced in the domain name...Policy, paragraph 4(a).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based upon the trademark registrations cited by Complainant, it is apparent that Complainant has rights in and to the SINGAPORE POOLS Trademark.
...
2016-12-01 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel must find that the Complainant has a trademark or service mark and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark or service mark for the Complainant to succeed.
...In this case, this Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark COMERICA BANK of the Complainant since the addition of the prefix “the” is not sufficient to make a distinction from the Complainant and its trademarks. ...
2016-11-25 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant makes the following submissions.
Identical or confusingly similar
The Top-Level Domain ("TLD") is a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded for the purposes of determining whether the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark. ...However, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent's default.
A. 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.
...
2017-12-04 - Case Details
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”.
...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark and holds that the Complaint fulfils the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2014-07-01 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element the Complainant must have trade or service mark rights and the Domain Name must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade or service mark.
...Moreover, previous UDRP panels have found at least eight other domain names registered by the Respondent to be identical or confusingly similar to another entity’s trademark and registered and used in bad faith: see Revlon Consumer Products Corporation v. ...
2012-11-09 - Case Details
Complainant
i. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks owned by the Complainant, as the
term “rotoplas” is fully included in the disputed domain name, reproducing the trademarks owned by the
Complainant.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-12-06 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied in the present case, as follows:
(a) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark or a service in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant contends that by incorporating the Complainant’s AXA trademark in its entirety, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is required to establish the two following elements: (1) that it has trademark rights, and, if so, (2) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark(s).
...
2019-10-30 - Case Details
Complainant
(i) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademarks INTESA SANPAOLO EURODESK and INTESA SANPAOLO in which the Complainant has rights.
...The Panel holds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark INTESA SANPAOLO EURODESK especially in that it incorporates the Complainant’s mark in its entirety. ...
2015-01-08 - Case Details
The Panel also finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to this trademark. Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark for purposes of the Policy “[…] when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...The Panel also finds that the Disputed Domain Names incorporating the unregistered marks BK or “murli” are each confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks – as noted above previous UDRP panels have consistently held that domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2021-11-24 - Case Details
Policy, paragraph 4(a).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant’s registrations establish its trademark rights. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-02-27 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-04-24 - Case Details
page 3
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-01-21 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-08-22 - Case Details