Therefore, according to Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with Complainant’s
trademark PINSENT MASONS, fulfilling paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, and paragraphs 3(b)(viii) and
3(b)(ix)(1) of the Rules.
...Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark
PINSENT MASONS, and so the requirement of the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2023-07-18 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Section 1.2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states that registration of a trademark is prima facie evidence of
Complainant having rights for purposes of standing to file a UDRP case.
...The Panel finds that the entirety of the LENNAR Mark is recognizable in the Disputed Domain Names and
the addition of the words “bid” and “offers” cannot prevent the finding of confusingly similarity, therefore the
Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the LENNAR Mark.
...
2022-09-22 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Annexes D and E to the Complaint show trademark registrations for TETRA PAK obtained by the
Complainant as early as in 1951.
...It is also already well established that the addition of a gTLD such as “.com” is typically irrelevant when
determining whether a domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark.
As a result, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademarks, and that the Complainant has satisfied the first element of the Policy.
...
2022-05-18 - Case Details
Complainant
(i) The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name reproduces the Mark, in which the
Complainant has rights, and is nearly identical and is confusingly similar, to the Mark, insofar as the disputed
domain name contains the Mark in its entirety.
...It is well established that a ccTLD does not generally affect the assessment of a domain name for the
purpose of determining identity or confusingly similarity.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Mark,
which is incorporated in its entirety, because the Mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name.
...
2023-03-24 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(c) sets out various circumstances which, if found by the Panel to be proved based on the evaluation of all the evidence presented, shall demonstrate that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant must prove that (1) the complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark; and (2) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark.
...The Panel also finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the DARDEN Trademarks. The disputed domain name incorporates “Darden” in its entirety. ...
2022-03-15 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP, the Complainant must prove that the Domain Name is identical
or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has 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...
2023-04-21 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP, the Complainant must prove that the Domain Name is identical
or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has 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...
2023-07-05 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Mark because the disputed
domain name adopts the Mark entirely and adds as a suffix the generic word “trade”. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark.
...
2023-06-14 - Case Details
page 3
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. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-01-16 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant pleads that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered trademark
WOODOKU, since it fully incorporates Complainant’s trademark WOODOKU.
...Therefore, according to Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with Complainant’s
trademark WOODOKU, fulfilling paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2023-08-15 - 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 f irst 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...
2024-01-17 - Case Details
Complainant
(i) The Complainant submits that the disputed domain names reproduce the Mark, in which the Complainant
has rights, and are nearly identical, and confusingly similar, to the Mark, insofar as the disputed domain
names contains the Mark in its entirety.
...If the disputed domain names are
compared with the DOMITYS trademark, the Complainant’s trademark is also confusingly similar.
It is well established that a ccTLD does not generally affect the assessment of a domain name for the
purpose of determining identity or confusingly similarity.
...
2022-07-20 - Case Details
The Complainants have been using their VALERO trademark since at least as early as 1983.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainants’ VALERO trademark.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainants have established that they own rights in the VALERO trademark and the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainants’ VALERO trademark.
...
2017-03-09 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks AIR FRANCE, since the Disputed Domain Name reproduces the Complainant’s trademarks in its entirety.
...Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name
is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s AIR FRANCE trademark. The Complainant’s trademark is clearly recognizable within the Disputed Domain Name.
...
2019-02-19 - Case Details
The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for the AEG trademark throughout the world.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's AEG trademark.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it owns rights in the AEG trademark and the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's AEG trademark.
...
2016-11-24 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant makes the following submissions.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Disputed Domain Name consists of the Trade Mark combined with the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.store”. ...However, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s default.
B. 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.
...
2016-12-23 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks CARREFOUR and CARREFOUR PASS.
...Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CARREFOUR and CARREFOUR PASS trademarks. The Disputed Domain Name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s trademarks as its only distinctive element.
...
2019-01-29 - 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 service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant contends that by incorporating the Complainant’s SUPERGA 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).
...
2020-11-27 - Case Details
In Knot We Trust LTD,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0340.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has submitted evidence of its ownership of registrations for the ARNOLD CLARK mark in the United Kingdom. ...The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ARNOLD CLARK mark. Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2021-05-27 - Case Details
The Complainants continue that the Disputed Domain Name is clearly confusingly similar with Barclays’ rights. The Complainants submit that the Disputed Domain Name incorporates the BARCLAYS trademark in full, with the additional letter “w” at the end, which the Complainants state is insignificant and likely to go unnoticed by an Internet user.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BARCLAYS trademark, in which they have rights. ...
2019-12-30 - Case Details