Miami Investment Brokers Inc, WIPO Case No. D2012-1213).
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant put up an extensive list of its registered HALLIBURTON marks which it owns in many
countries.
...Substantive Elements of the Policy
B. Effect of Default
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
D. Rights or Legitimate Interests
E. Registration and Use in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-09-06 - Case Details
In Knot We Trust LTD, WIPO Case No. D2006-0340.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Ownership of a trademark registration is generally sufficient evidence that a complainant has the requisite
rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...See, e.g., The Knot, Inc. v. In Kno...
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Ownership of a trademark registration is generally sufficient evidence that a complainant has the requisite rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...
2023-05-09 - Case Details
It is generally regarded as prima facie evidence of no rights or legitimate interests if a complainant shows
that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark, that
Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and that Complainant has not authorized
Respondent to use its mark (or an expression which is confusingly similar to its mark), whether in the
disputed domain name or otherwise. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-05-11 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that a domain name is 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”. ...In other words, Respondent has through the use of a confusingly similar disputed domain name created a likelihood of confusion with the PATIENTKEEPER marks for its own commercial gain.
...
2021-12-13 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark 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” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...In other words, Respondent has through the use of a confusingly similar disputed domain names and webpage contents (e.g. webpages of and , see Exhibit D to the Complaint) created a likelihood of confusion with the JUICY Mark. ...
2013-01-03 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that a domain name is 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. ...In other words, Respondent has, through the use of a confusingly similar domain name and webpage contents, created a likelihood of confusion with the JACK WOLFSKIN Marks. ...
2014-05-01 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that a domain name is 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. ...Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondent is currently using the confusingly similar disputed domain name with the intention to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website.
...
2018-01-31 - Case Details
Party Night Inc, WIPO
Case No. D2003–0796).
2. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
mark because it incorporates that mark in its entirety (citing Nikon Inc
and Nikon Corp v. ...The Panel has little difficulty in concluding that the Domain Name is
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. The Panel accepts the Complainant’s
submission that, where a domain name incorporates someone’s registered
mark in its entirety, there is a high likelihood of the domain name being confusingly
similar to that mark. ...
2006-06-22 - 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 that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), for the following reasons:
Registration of a trademark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the trademark is inherently distinctive. ...Respondent registered the Domain Names in bad faith since the Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s well-known ALLSTATE trademark, and there is no legitimate use as discussed above.
...
2011-04-18 - Case Details
The mere fact that the Respondent registered the confusingly similar disputed domain name without authorization is evidence of its bad faith registration (Veuve Cliquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondee en 1772 v. ...WIPO UDRP panels consistently have found that incorporation of a trademark in its entirety may establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Gerry Senker,
WIPO Case No. ...
2011-04-14 - Case Details
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to his JAY LENO mark, as it incorporates his well-known name and mark in its entirety. ...Turning to the issue of identity, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's JAY LENO mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. The critical inquiry under the first element of the Policy is whether the mark and domain name, when directly compared, are identical or confusingly similar. ...
2009-07-03 - Case Details
The domain name , being absolutely identical to Complainant's registered trademark CARIPARMA is per se confusingly similar and make an unauthorized use of such trademark. The addition of the gTLD .com is irrelevant, being instrumental to the use on the Internet.
...Domain name identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant has provided evidence of ownership of Italian trademark registration No. 627732 of November 11, 1991, for the word mark CARIPARMA.
...
2001-08-02 - Case Details
The Complainant claims that said domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. This is especially the case having regard to the fact that said domain name is merely comprised of the Complainant’s trademark and the words "heaven-uk". ...Identical or Confusingly Similar
This Administrative Panel accepts the Complainant’s submission that said domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s NOKIA trademark. ...
2002-03-13 - Case Details
The addition of descriptive or generic indications to a third party trademark does not avoid a domain name being confusingly similar to that third party trademark.
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s VIRGIN, VIRGIN Signature logo, VIRGIN MEDIA and VIRGIN MEDIA logo registered trademarks.
...A complainant must prove each of these three elements to succeed.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the owner of numerous VIRGIN and VIRGIN MEDIA word and logo marks (and other VIRGIN marks) and clearly has rights in those marks.
...
2021-04-30 - Case Details
Therefore, the Domain Name could be considered virtually identical and/or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. ...D2001-0110, stating “The incorporation of a Complainant’s well-known trademark in the registered Domain Name is considered sufficient to find the Domain Name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark”.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first requirement that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark, under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy
B. ...
2021-01-28 - Case Details
On the first element of the Policy, the Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly
similar to the ACCENTURE Trademark. In both sight and sound, the disputed domain name is nearly
identical or confusingly similar to the distinctive and famous ACCENTURE Trademark. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2026-05-05 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that a domain name is 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”. ...Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondent is currently using the confusingly similar disputed domain name with the intention to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website.
...
2019-07-10 - Case Details
The above three elements will each be discussed in further detail below.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is required to establish: (1) that it owns rights in a trademark or service mark, and, if so, (2)
that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademarks.
...This finding is further supported by the fact that the disputed domain name
carries a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant since it is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademarks and includes a descriptive term (“services”).
...
2023-05-19 - Case Details
i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the
Complainant has rights.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its
trademarks since it incorporates the VOLCOM mark in its entirety. ...The above three elements will each be discussed in further detail below.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is required to establish: (1) that it owns rights in a trademark or service mark, and, if so, (2)
that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademarks.
...
2023-06-23 - Case Details
Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trade mark. Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...On the other hand, the proceeding may proceed expeditiously in English.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-06-19 - Case Details