A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, there are two requirements which the Complainant must establish, first that it has rights in a trademark or service mark, and second that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark.
...According to section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, the applicable Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) in a domain name (e.g., “.com”, “.club”, “.nyc”, or as in this case “.org”) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is generally disregarded under the first element confusingly similar test.
In view of the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and that requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2021-07-21 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has proven ownership of the registered trademarks for KIEHL'S referred to in section 4 above.
...For all of the above-mentioned reasons, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark KIEHL'S in which the Complainant has rights, and therefore the condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) is fulfilled.
...
2021-07-15 - Datos del caso
Considering these requirements, the Panel rules as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain name is identical
or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which
the Complainant has rights, meaning that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under
paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2022-05-06 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
As set forth in section 1.7 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) the standing test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the trademark and the disputed domain name to determine whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the trademark. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the BEIN trademark in which the Complainant has rights and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are fulfilled.
...
2022-02-09 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has proved that it has rights in the trademark ELECTROLUX.
...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the Complainant’s ELECTROLUX trademark and that the conditions of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy have been fulfilled.
...
2021-10-29 - Datos del caso
It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, where appropriate, will decide consistent with the consensus views captured therein.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy it should be established that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the complainant has rights.
...As decided in previous UDRP decisions, the practice of typosquatting creates domain names that are confusingly similar to a relevant trademark, as has occurred in this case. See section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.
...
2021-11-30 - Datos del caso
As long established by previous UDRP panels, this may be sufficient to determine that a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
The addition of the French possessive adjective “ma”, meaning “my” in English, and the use of a dash between “ma” and the Complainant’s trademark does not prevent the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
...Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
The Panel finds that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is met.
...
2021-11-24 - Datos del caso
Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...It has also been established by prior UDRP panels that incorporating a trademark in its entirety into a domain name can be sufficient to establish that the domain name is confusingly similar to a registered trademark. Numerous UDRP panels have recognised that the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark. ...
2021-11-16 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the CHEMOURS trademark. The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the CHEMOURS trademark in its entirety.
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. ...
2022-02-17 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has proved that it has rights in the trademark CENTERPOINT ENERGY.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the trademark CENTERPOINT ENERGY in which the Complainant has rights and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy therefore are fulfilled.
...
2022-03-02 - Datos del caso
Further, the Complainant has a wide range of registered trade mark rights in the words “LA ROCHE-POSAY”.
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the LA ROCHE-POSAY trade mark. Previous 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” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark and, therefore, the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...
2013-01-23 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This question raises two issues: (1) does the Complainant have rights in a trademark or service mark; and (2) is the domain name identical or confusingly similar to such trademark or service mark.
...Concerning the second issue, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademarks. First, the Respondent’s domain names incorporate the Complainant’s trademarks in their entirety. ...
2013-04-05 - Datos del caso
Complainant
The Complainant asserts, first, that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the CANADIAN TIRE trade marks as it consists of the words “Canadian”, “tire” and “Mastercard”. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established it has rights to the CANADIAN TIRE trade marks. The next question to be considered is whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CANADIAN TIRE trade mark. ...
2012-07-18 - Datos del caso
Consequently, the Panel must proceed with an assessment of the Complaint on its merits.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name consists of the misspelled word “huyndai”, and “card” plus the descriptive gTLD suffix “.com”. ...The Respondent thus appears to have registered the confusingly similar domain name, utilizing typo-squatting, with the intention of taking advantage of the goodwill and fame established by the Complainant in the Mark. ...
2012-07-06 - Datos del caso
A domain name containing a common or obvious misspelling of a trademark as its principal component is normally found to be confusingly similar to the trademark. See Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc. v. LaPorte Holdings,
WIPO Case No. ...The Respondent thus appears to have registered the confusingly similar domain name, utilizing typo-squatting, with the intention of taking advantage of the goodwill and fame established by the Complainant in the Mark. ...
2012-07-06 - Datos del caso
c) That the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its mark for the following reasons:
(a) The dominant portion of the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark LEGO.
...c) The disputed domain name adds a non-distinctive prefix and is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel accepts the Complainant’s contentions and finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. ...
2012-07-05 - Datos del caso
A Complaint may only be granted if the above criteria are met simultaneously.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has proved to the Panel’s satisfaction that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the name and trademark of the Complainant.
...This strongly suggests that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the mark LEGO.
The Panel therefore finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark LEGO and as a consequence, the Complaint brought by the Complainant meets the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2012-06-14 - Datos del caso
For these reasons, the Panel finds that those names are confusingly similar to that mark. See, Two Men and a Truck / International, Inc. v. Jason Rager / Paydues Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1312 (finding that is confusingly similar to the TWO MEN AND A TRUCK mark.); The Gillette Company v. RFK Associates, NAF Claim No. ...
2012-04-17 - Datos del caso
The Panel will therefore ignore then in rendering its decision.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
...D2001-0778 (October 1, 2001) ( was found confusingly similar to the PLAYBOY mark); Adaptive Molecular Technologies, Inc. v. Piscilla Woodward S Charles R Thorton, d/b/a Machines & More,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-11-06 - Datos del caso
Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith because (i) the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s predecessor-in-title’s trademark rights in YUMMY MUMMY when the Respondent registered the confusingly similar disputed domain names; and (ii) the Respondent registered and is using confusingly similar domain names to interfere with the Complainant’s business.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant does have registered trademark rights in the mark YUMMY MUMMY by virtue of its Canadian Trademark Registration No. ...
2015-02-19 - Datos del caso