Having considered the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules, the Supplemental Rules and applicable principles of law, the Panel's findings on each of the above cited elements are as follows.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires Complainant to show that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights. ...D2000-0578 (finding that the domain names and were confusingly similar to THE WALL STREET JOURNAL).
The Panel finds that Complainant has met its burden of showing that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's SHENANDOAH and SHENANDOAH CABINETRY marks.
...
2016-06-23 - Case Details
The Complainant further contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar its L'ORÉAL Trademark in view of the Disputed Domain Name reproduces the Complainant’s Trademark in its entirety, which previous panels have considered to be “well-known” or “famous”. ...Also, pursuant to section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark the domain name will normally be considered identical or confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing.
In view of the above, the Panel concludes that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademark and therefore, the Complainant has satisfied the first element of the Policy.
...
2020-05-18 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name identical or confusingly similar to the XHAMSTER 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. ...
2020-06-15 - 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.
...
2020-10-02 - 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 Respondents’ website.
...
2021-08-31 - Case Details
The Complainant submits the grounds for these proceedings are listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy as explained below.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its registered trade and service marks. ...The fact that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name before the Complainant does not prevent a finding of identical and confusingly similar, Digital Vision, Ltd. v. Advanced Chemill Systems,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0827.
The Panel recognises the Complainant's rights and concludes that the domain name at issue is identical or confusingly similar with the Complainant's trademark.
...
2009-12-14 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered MANHEIM AUCTIONS trademark as the Respondent has eliminated only a single letter from the trademark.
...D2002-0033, “the domain
name maserati.org is not only confusingly similar to, but indeed practically
identical with, the registered trademark MASERATI, notwithstanding the added
gTLD .org”.
...
2006-10-30 - Case Details
Respondent could only have registered a domain name so confusingly similar to Complainant's marks to capitalize on the valuable goodwill associated with those marks. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied when a complainant is able to prove two necessary elements: first, that the complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark, and second, that the domain name in dispute is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark on which the complainant relies.
...
2010-07-20 - Case Details
Having considered the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules, the Supplemental Rules and applicable principles of law, the Panel’s findings on each of the above cited elements are as follows.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires Complainant to show that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights. ...There is also substantial authority that registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a well-known trademark by any entity that has no relationship to that mark, is itself sufficient evidence of bad faith registration and use. ...
2016-10-03 - Case Details
Complainant
a) The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade-marks
The Complainant asserts that the domain name in issue is identical or confusingly similar to a trade-mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...The Panel is also prepared to accept that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered international trade-mark CASINO DE MONTE-CARLO, in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2008-02-20 - Case Details
For all these reasons, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, and that the requirements of the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), are satisfied.
...By registering several domain names that are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, the Respondent has prevented the Complainant from reflecting its mark in corresponding domain names. ...
2007-11-30 - Case Details
D2003-0411 (finding and TURIN 2006 confusingly
similar and ordering transfer, as TURIN is the English, French, German and Spanish
translation of the Italian word TORINO); Baccarat SA v. ...D2000-0413 (“chanelstore” and “chanelfashion”
were found to be confusingly similar to the “CHANEL” mark); Brambles
Industries Limited v. Geelong Car Company Pty Ltd, WIPO
Case No. ...
2005-07-02 - Case Details
International Electronic Communications
Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that the Respondent’s domain
name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s VIAGRA mark for purposes
of Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...Indeed,
there are numerous examples of decisions holding a domain name to be confusingly
similar to a registered trademark when it consists of the mark plus one or more
generic terms. ...
2004-11-03 - Case Details
The decision as to whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark is by its nature a matter of fact for an administrative panel.
The Complainant has alleged that each of the said domain names are confusingly similar to its "PHILIPS" trademark but has not given any reasons for this submission and would appear to rely on the fact that the letters "philips" are incorporated in each of these domain names.
On considering the visual and aural characteristics of each of the domain
names in issue in these proceedings, this Administrative Panel has concluded
that the domain names and
are neither identical nor confusingly similar to the Complainant's "PHILIPS"
trademark. In the view of this Administrative Panel however the domain name
is confusingly similar to the Complainant's
"PHILIPS" trade mark.
...
2001-09-05 - Case Details
was held confusingly similar to both VOLVO and VOLVO CARS in the Roger Nichols
case (Volvo Trademark Holding AB v. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Is the domain name confusingly similar to the Trademark or to the trade name VOLVO CARS?
...
2003-06-19 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the domain name at issue is identical to Complainant’s prior trade name GEC ALSTHOM and confusingly similar to complainant’s current trademarks ALSTHOM and ALSTOM.
Complainant asserts that a domain name that contains two marks has been held
to be confusingly similar to each of the individual marks, regardless of the
relationship between the owners of the marks, see WIPO
Case No. ...Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant is the owner of the registered trademarks ALSTOM and ALSTHOM, furthermore its former trade name was GEC ALSTHOM. ...
2002-11-27 - Case Details
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar
to its marks.
Complainant claims that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in
the disputed domain names. ...The Panel determines that the disputed
domain name is confusingly similar to the "AT&T"
marks.
The Panel has determined that Complainant has rights in the "AT&T"
marks, and that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to those marks.
...
2003-10-30 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainants have demonstrated rights in the PILÃO trademark through the trademark registrations
identified in section 4 above.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainants have demonstrated rights in the PILÃO trademark through the trademark registrations identified in section 4 above.
...
2026-08-03 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), the Complainant shall prove that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...Thus, the Panel finds that the Respondent, who knew or should have known, at the registration stage, that the disputed domain name would be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks given their reputation, registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...
2020-12-02 - Case Details
Complainant
The following is a brief summary of the main assertions of the Complainant.
The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the MAX FACTOR trademark in which the Complainant has rights. ...A domain name that wholly incorporates a trademark, in particular one as famous as MAX FACTOR, should be found to be confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy, despite the fact that it may also contain, after the trademark, a generic or geographic term such as “cn”. ...
2020-11-24 - Case Details