The Panel has rendered its decision in English accordingly.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), the Complainants have to prove that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainants have rights.
...In light of the Panel's finding under the first element, namely that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainants' trademark, the Panel adopts the view of prior UDRP panels, who have found that "the right to criticize does not necessarily extend to registering and using a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant's trademark." ...
2015-07-13 - Datos del caso
The Panel will deal with each of these requirements in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element, Complainant must first establish that there is a trademark or service mark in which it has rights. ...D2012-1395, where the domain name was held to be confusingly similar to the KAREN MILLEN trademark; Belstaff S.R.L. v. Jason Lau, Sharing,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0783, where the domain name was held to be confusingly similar to the BELSTAFF trademark; Lime Wire LLC v. ...
2015-11-30 - Datos del caso
Complainant
The Complainant makes the following contentions.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The relevant trade mark registrations establish that the Complainant is the owner of the Trade Mark. ...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.
...
2015-11-25 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant is the owner of the trademark FIVE GUYS both by registration and acquired reputation and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark FIVE GUYS.
...The addition of the term "Iran" does not therefore prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.
It is also well accepted that a generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") suffix, in this case ".com", may be ignored when assessing the similarity between a trademark and a domain name (see, e.g., VAT Holding AG v Vat.com,
WIPO Case No. ...
2014-12-31 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark and, second, is the Disputed Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
...D2004-0117 (a domain name incorporating a well known trademark combined with a geographically descriptive term is confusingly similar to the trademark); Inter-IKEA Systems B.V. v. Hoon Huh,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0438 (the addition of the term “korea” in does not prevent the domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark).
...
2014-02-18 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Disputed Domain Name differs from the Complainant’s registered Marks in that the letter “o” is omitted in the Disputed Domain Name.
The Panel is prepared to find that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s WORDPRESS Marks.
It is a long-established precedent that a minor misspelling of a complainant’s trademark, or the addition of generic or other words creates a confusingly similar domain name. ...
2013-10-16 - Datos del caso
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to many registered trademarks in which Complainant has rights. Thus, the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2013-10-14 - Datos del caso
The Panel also finds that the disputed domain name is either identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s LUCIFER mark. The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s entire registered trademark. ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. Accordingly, the Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
...
2013-06-05 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s DARK & LOVELY Mark in its entirety, adding only the “.com” generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix, and changing only the ampersand in Complainant’s Mark to the word “and”.
...It is well established that the inclusion of the gTLD, here “.com,” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark. See Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady,
WIPO Case No. ...
2014-03-24 - Datos del caso
Matthew Smith,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0540.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element requires consideration of two issues: (1) whether Complainant has rights in a trademark; and (2) whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to such trademark.
...This leaves the question of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered trademark.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark, because the disputed domain name consists of the entirety of Complainant’s trademark, differing only in the omission of the letter “i”, along with the gTLD “.com”. ...
2013-11-14 - Datos del caso
Complainant
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark ROLAND GARROS, being a combination of the term “tickets” with the Complainant’s trademark ROLAND GARROS.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant is the owner of the trademark ROLAND GARROS both by registration and acquired reputation and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark ROLAND GARROS.
...
2014-01-30 - Datos del caso
The Complainant further contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark, as it incorporates the trademark DIRECTV entirely and merely adds the generic term "net".
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the owner of the registered United States trademark DIRECTV. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's trademark in its entirety. ...
2014-09-26 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark and, second, is the Disputed Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
...D2004-0117 (a domain name incorporating a well known trademark combined with a geographically descriptive term is confusingly similar to the trademark); Inter-IKEA Systems B.V. v. Hoon Huh,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0438 (the addition of the term “korea” in does not prevent the domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark).
...
2014-04-28 - Datos del caso
Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLUESCOPE Mark. Complainant observes that the Disputed Domain Name fully incorporates the BLUESCOPE trademark. ...Prior UDRP panels have recognized that the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety may be sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered mark. AT&T Corp. v. William Gormally,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0758 (finding confusingly similar to ATT); Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. ...
2014-04-28 - Datos del caso
Having considered the Complaint and the available evidence, the Panel finds the following:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry – a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trade mark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trade mark.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2014-04-17 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There is no doubt that Complainant holds rights in the famous trademark ZIPPO. The Panel further concludes that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the ZIPPO mark, since it incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds the generic term "catalog," suggesting to the Internet user that one is likely to find an online catalog of ZIPPO products at the corresponding website.
...On balance, the Panel also finds the Domain Name confusingly similar to Complainant's mark.
Accordingly, the Panel concludes that Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) has been satisfied by Complainant..
...
2014-08-18 - Datos del caso
In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, if the Respondent does not submit a Response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute based upon the Complaint.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: First, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark and, second, is the Disputed Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
...Thus, it is well established that such element may be disregarded when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. Proactiva Medio Ambiente, S.A. v. Proactiva,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0182.
...
2014-08-05 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark and that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to such trademark.
...The Panel finds that the Complainant’s pleadings insufficiently demonstrate that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademark.
Therefore, the first element of the Policy is not met. Nonetheless, the Panel will discuss the other elements of this case.
...
2015-05-13 - Datos del caso
Therefore Complainant must establish that each is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, determined with reference to the degree of resemblance between the domain name and mark at issue as to appearance, sound, and meaning. ...As a general matter, a domain name is likely to be confusingly similar to a mark if it incorporates the mark or a variation of the mark2 . The Panel finds that Complainant has established that each domain name is confusingly similar to the AUDI mark. ...
2015-09-21 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well-established that "a domain name that wholly incorporates a Complainant's registered mark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP" (Dr. ...Hka c/o Dynadot Privacy,
WIPO Case No. D2014-1874 (the domain name is confusingly similar to the mark IKEA and …to the extent ".buzz" denotes news and information about "Ikea" this would exacerbate confusion); Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v. ...
2015-09-30 - Datos del caso