Complainant
Complainant contends, in relevant part, as follows:
- The Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the BADGLEY MISCHKA Trademark because “[i]n creating the Disputed Domain Names, Respondent has added the generic, descriptive terms ‘swim’ and ‘swimwear’ to Complainant’s BADGLEY MISCHKA trademark, thereby making the Disputed Domain Names confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark. ...Policy, paragraph 4(a).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based upon the trademark registrations cited by Complainant, it is apparent that Complainant has rights in and to the BADGLEY MISCHKA Trademark.
...
2018-10-22 - Datos del caso
The Complainant is of the opinion that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its ARCELORMITTAL trademark. The Complainant contends that the addition of the letter “R” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark ARCELORMITTAL. ...It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, where appropriate, will decide consistent with the WIPO Overview 3.0.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Policy requires the Complainant to demonstrate that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. ...
2018-12-21 - Datos del caso
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.
...A domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trade mark is considered by UDRP panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element.
The Panel considers that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark and that this is clear case of typosquatting. ...
2018-06-29 - Datos del caso
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the DIABLO trademark for the purposes of the Policy and thus paragraph 4(a)(i) (of the Policy) has been established.
...The purpose behind registration (of the Domain Name) was clearly to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s misleading website using a domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s DIABLO trademark. In other words, precisely the circumstances envisaged above. ...
2020-07-28 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfactorily proven that it has registered trademark rights for CHATROULETTE.
...D2001-0110, stating “The incorporation of a Complainant’s well-known trademark in the registered Domain Name is considered sufficient to find the Domain Name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.”
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first requirement that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark, under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2019-01-24 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfactorily proven that it has registered trademark rights for CHATROULETTE.
...D2001-0110, stating “The incorporation of a Complainant’s well-known trademark in the registered Domain Name is considered sufficient to find the Domain Name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark”.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first requirement that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark, under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2019-01-18 - 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, are the Disputed Domain Names identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. ...Thus, it is well established that such element may typically be disregarded when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. See Proactiva Medio Ambiente, S.A. v. Proactiva,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0182.
...
2020-05-28 - Datos del caso
Complainant
The Complainant submits that the confusingly similar domain name contains as its first element the Complainant’s registered LEGO trademark. ...The Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Respondent registered a confusingly similar domain name for purposes of monetary gain and is using it to interfere with the Complainant’s business. ...
2020-05-27 - Datos del caso
Respondent takes advantage of the ELECTROLUX trademark by using a confusingly similar domain name to send fraudulent emails, portraying itself to be Complainant and extracting payments from Complainant’s customers. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the domain name of Complainant’s official website and the only difference is the placement of the letters “t” and “c” in the disputed domain name. ...
2020-05-13 - Datos del caso
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.
...Here, the Respondent registered domain names confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark on multiple occasions. Carrefour v. Perfect Privacy, LLC / Milen Radumilo,
WIPO Case No. ...
2020-06-19 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in the OANDA trade mark, based on its various trade mark registrations.
...The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s OANDA trade mark, and accordingly, paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2020-10-12 - Datos del caso
Accordingly, the Domain Name is identical to the Application and confusingly similar to the Trademark.
The Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the Domain Name. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark or service mark and, if so, the Domain Name must be shown to be identical or confusingly similar to that mark.
...
2020-12-04 - Datos del caso
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SANOFI trademark for the purposes of the Policy and thus paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy thereof has been established.
...The purpose behind the registration appears to have been to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s (commercial) website using a domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SANOFI trademark. In other words, the very circumstances envisaged above. ...
2020-12-02 - Datos del caso
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SANOFI trademark for the purposes of the Policy and thus paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy thereof has been established.
...The purpose behind registration of the Domain Name appears to have been to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s (commercial) website using a domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SANOFI trademark. In other words, the circumstances envisaged above. ...
2020-11-30 - Datos del caso
Complainant
Firstly, the Complainant points out that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered trademarks in which the Complainant has rights. In fact, the disputed domain name is almost identical to the trademark “CERCAFACILE2ECLISSE” and confusingly similar to the further trademark ECLISSE. ...Many UDRP panels have found that a domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark where it incorporates the complainant’s trademark in its entirety (e.g., F. ...
2020-11-30 - 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. ...Thus, the Panel concludes that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CLIFFORD CHANCE Mark.
Accordingly, the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant.
...
2020-04-16 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfactorily proven that it has registered trademark rights for ALLIANZ.
...D2001-0110, stating “The incorporation of a Complainant’s well-known trademark in the registered Domain Name is considered sufficient to find the Domain Name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.”
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first requirement that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark, under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2020-04-07 - Datos del caso
In light of these circumstances, the Panel concludes that it will (1) accept the Complaint in English; and (2) issue a decision in English.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts; first, whether the Complainant has rights in a relevant trademark and, second, whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
...The Respondent created the disputed domain name which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark CONSEP with the knowledge of the Complainant’s famous trademarks and its business.
...
2019-05-17 - 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.
...For the purposes of comparing the disputed domain name with the Trade Mark, the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” can be disregarded.2 The Complainant’s submission is that “[A] domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark, when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name.” ...
2019-05-17 - 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.
...It is well established that a domain name that wholly incorporates a trademark may be confusingly similar to that trademark for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of a descriptive or generic word. ...
2019-05-03 - Datos del caso