Complainant
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the VELUX marks.
Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...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. ...
2020-05-12 - Case Details
In addition,
Complainant notes that by registering the Domain Name which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s
domain name is a form of typo squatting, which is in itself evidence of bad faith.
...Indeed, the Domain Name, which is predominantly
constituted by Complainant’s well known mark, is “confusingly similar” to Complainant’s mark, differing in
only the addition of a single letter “l” in the Domain Name. ...
2024-01-31 - Case Details
Prior panels have held that a deliberate misspelling of a trademark registered as a domain
name, which is intended to confuse Internet users, must be confusingly similar by design. See WIPO
Overview 3.0, section 1.9; See also Allstate Insurance Company v. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-05-10 - 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.
...
2022-02-16 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is nearly identical and confusingly similar to such
mark. The disputed domain name contains the FORD mark as its dominant element. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-03-16 - Case Details
Complainant has met its initial burden as 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. ...Prior UDRP panels
have found under the doctrine of passive holding that the non-use of a domain name that is confusingly
similar to a complainant’s mark constitutes use in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, Section 3.3.
...
2022-06-17 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), the Complainant shall prove that the Disputed Domain Names are
identical or confusingly similar to a 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...
2022-06-10 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel f inds the disputed domain name
confusingly similar or identical to the VICTAULIC Mark in which Complainant has rights and Complainant has
satisf ied its burden under the f irst element 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...
2024-01-03 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the VERIZON Mark,
pursuant to 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...
2023-11-15 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has properly confirmed its rights in the NATIXIS Trademark due to the long use and
number of registrations worldwide.
...According to the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9, a domain name which consists of a common,
obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the
relevant mark for purposes of the first element. The Panel finds that omission of one letter “i” and presence
of the term “inter” in the Disputed Domain Name does not prevent the Disputed Domain Name from being
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s NATIXIS Trademark.
...
2023-11-09 - 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 DAKINE 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.
...
2023-01-19 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
7. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
8. Decision...
2024-06-04 - Case Details
D2009-1699, the disputed domain name was found to be confusingly similar to the WIKIPEDIA trade mark;
- In SANOFI AVENTIS v. ProtectFly.com/RegisterFly.com,
WIPO Case No. ...D2006-0199, the disputed domain name was found to be confusingly similar to the FLYERS trade mark;
- In Gateway Inc. v. Domains by Proxy Inc. / NetWeb, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2010-12-08 - Case Details
It has been consistently held in numerous auDRP and UDRP decisions that a domain name is generally considered as identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s trade mark “when the domain name includes the trade mark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name”, see Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...D2002-0363 (finding and other domain names incorporating DELL mark confusingly similar to DELL) and Telstra Corporation Limited v. Ozurls,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0046 (finding and other domain names incorporating TELSTRA mark confusingly similar to TELSTRA).
...
2013-06-07 - Case Details
Requirements of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy
(i) Identical or Confusingly Similar
In comparing the Mark with the disputed domain name , it is evident that the latter consists solely of the Mark and the gTLD ".email".
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Mark, which it incorporates in its entirety.
Thus, the Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2014-12-03 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant Volkswagen AG's VOLKSWAGEN trademarks because it entirely incorporates them.
...The Panel finds: a) that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant Volkswagen AG's VOLKSWAGEN trademarks; b) that the disputed domain names , , and are confusingly similar to the Complainant Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A.'...
2015-05-07 - Case Details
Complainant contends that the disputed domain names , and are confusingly similar to Complainant's MARLBORO mark because each contains the MARLBORO mark in its entirety. ...The disputed domain names , and are confusingly similar to the MARLBORO mark as each incorporates the MARLBORO mark in its entirety at the head of each disputed domain name. ...
2015-05-29 - Case Details
International
Electronic Communications Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s FNAC trademark,
a well-known mark in which the Complainant has demonstrated rights through registration and extensive
use. ...UDPR panels generally have held that a domain name identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s
trademark carries a high risk of implied affiliation. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1. ...
2022-09-02 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated that it has rights in its ALIENLABS trademark through registration and
widespread use. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-07-28 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that a domain name may be 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 confusingly similar domain name and webpage content created a likelihood of confusion with the OSRAM marks. ...
2017-01-30 - Case Details