A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has registered rights in the ONLYFANS trade mark based on its various trade mark registrations.
...As such, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ONLYFANS trade mark, and accordingly, paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2021-05-19 - Datos del caso
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
First of all, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to prior trademarks of the Complainant, since it wholly incorporates the CRÉDIT FONCIER trademark, with addition of the term “France”.
...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.
...
2020-02-18 - Datos del caso
The Complainant must still prove each of the three elements required by Policy paragraph 4(a)”).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Ownership of a nationally or regionally registered trademark serves as prima facie evidence that Complainant has trademark rights for the purposes of standing to file this Complaint. ...The only remaining question under the first element of the Policy is whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALLIANZ trademark. In this Complaint, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALLIANZ trademark because, disregarding the generic Top-Level-Domain (“gTLD”) .com that trademark is contained in its entirety within the disputed domain name. ...
2019-11-06 - Datos del caso
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.
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BECHTLE trademark and that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2019-10-30 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has registered trademark rights in the TOEFL trademark. ...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. ...
2020-01-20 - 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. ...Second, in the circumstances of this case, the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name that is confusingly similar to (and in this case, misspelled) the Complainant’s trademark is evidence of bad faith registration and use. ...
2020-01-13 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the ALTRIA Mark as set forth below.
...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 dictionary word. ...
2019-10-11 - Datos del caso
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The disputed domain name reproduces entirety of the Complainant’s well-known trademarks IBIS and ACCOR. ...Considering the above the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, therefore, the Complainant has established its case under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2020-01-08 - Datos del caso
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its DALKIA trademark, since it reproduces it entirely and addition of the descriptive element “ltd” in not sufficient to prevent finding of confusing similarity.
...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.
...
2021-08-16 - 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 MICHELIN trademark in which the Complainant has rights and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are fulfilled.
...
2021-08-31 - Datos del caso
Complainant
The Complainant says that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its INSTITUTE ESTHEDERM trade mark. The deletion of the non-distinctive term “Institute” and the addition of the country-code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.ir” is insufficient to escape a finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. ...For the purpose of considering whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark, the ccTLD “.ir” is disregarded as this is a technical requirement of registration. ...
2021-08-09 - Datos del caso
Complainant
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) shall not be taken into account when comparing the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark. ...Considering the above, the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, therefore, the Complainant has established its case under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2021-08-04 - 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. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-07-12 - Datos del caso
Complainant
Complainant pleads that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered trademark
DECATHLON, since it fully incorporates Complainant’s trademark DECATHLON.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-07-13 - Datos del caso
Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademark and that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is met.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-05-22 - Datos del caso
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.
...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.
...
2023-04-13 - Datos del caso
Michael
Robertson, WIPO Case No. D2000-0009).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel agrees with Complainant’s allegation that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s MICHELIN mark.
...“[T]he mere registration of a domain name that is identical or
confusingly similar (particularly domain names . . . incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a
famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith.”
...
2023-06-26 - Datos del caso
page 3
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP, the Complainant must demonstrate that the disputed domain
names are (i) identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, (ii) 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...
2023-04-05 - Datos del caso