However, since the trademark is fully contained in the disputed domain name and the added descriptive term bears directly on the products sold under the mark, the Panel finds that the name is confusingly similar to the mark. See, Gregory Bros Pty Ltd, Gregory Jewellers Pty Ltd, LGR Holdings Pty Ltd v. ...D2002-0899 (finding to be confusingly similar to the KAY trademark).
Therefore, the Panel rules that the Complainant has succeeded in demonstrating that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2016-03-22 - 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.
...Second, the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Names that are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s GROUPON Mark is evidence of opportunistic bad faith. See Ebay Inc. v. ...
2016-03-14 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfactorily proven that it has registered trademark rights for VOLTAREN.
...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 trademark, under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2018-09-21 - 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.
...Given that the Complainant is a premier bank, the word element “ban” added to the Complainant’s CADENCE mark in fact – in addition to being confusingly similar to the CADENCE mark of the Complainant – creates an almost identical sign to the Complainant’s CADENCE BANK mark.
...
2017-09-06 - Datos del caso
Complainant
The Complainant alleges that:
(a) The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark.
The Complainant claims that the additional generic terms such as "photo" and "video" closely relate to and describe the Complainant's business and is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the trademark registrations cited by the Complainant, the Complainant has registered rights in the B&H trademarks. ...
2016-05-31 - 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.
...First, the registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a registered trademark by an entity that has no relationship to that mark may be sufficient evidence of opportunistic bad faith. ...
2016-04-22 - Datos del caso
Further, for the purpose of determining whether the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark, the generic Top Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com" is inconsequential. ...Secondly, the registration of the Disputed Domain Name that is confusingly similar to the well-known MARLBORO trademark by a natural person who has no relation to the mark suggests bad faith. ...
2018-03-15 - Datos del caso
The mere fact of registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar or identical to a famous trademark by an entity that has no relationship to that mark is itself evidence of bad faith registration and use.
...The Respondent has failed to file a Response in this proceeding and is therefore in default and the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the available evidence submitted by the Complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element, the Complainant must have trademark rights and the disputed domain name must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademark.
...
2018-03-14 - Datos del caso
Complainant
Complainant contends, in relevant part, as follows:
- The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the ADVANSIX Trademark because “the [Disputed] Domain Name entirely incorporates the federally registered ADVANSIX trademark, minus the letter ‘i,’ and simply represents ‘typo-squatting’ or purposeful misspelling”; and “[i]t is well-established under the Policy that a domain name composed solely of a trademark that has been purposefully misspelled by a typo-squatter is still confusingly similar to the trademark...Policy, paragraph 4(a)).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based upon the trademark registration cited by Complainant, it is apparent that Complainant has rights in and to the ADVANSIX Trademark.
...
2018-03-29 - 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.
...On the basis of facts and circumstance discussed above the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the G4S trademark of the Complainant and that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2018-12-18 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant is the owner of the trademark DUROMINE, both by registration and by acquired reputation and that the disputed domain names and are confusingly similar to the trademark DUROMINE.
...The Panel finds that the Complainant has therefore met its burden of proving that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has failed to file a Response in accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5.
...
2018-10-04 - 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
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
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element that the Complainant must establish is that the disputed domain name is identical with, or confusingly similar to, the Complainant’s trademark rights.
...Minor differences of this nature have long been recognised as confusingly similar under the Policy as an obvious misspelling. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and the requirement under the first limb of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2018-11-15 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under the first UDRP element, a complainant is required to prove that a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights. ...First, the registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark by an entity that has no relationship to that mark may be sufficient evidence of bad faith. ...
2018-11-02 - 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 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. ...
2018-10-31 - Datos del caso
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark INSTAGRAM in which it has rights. ...A complainant must then demonstrate that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark. Per section 1.7 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), the test for whether the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark is a relatively straightforward comparison. ...
2018-10-31 - Datos del caso
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
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark ARES in which it has rights and provides evidence of the trademark registrations referred to above. ...A complainant must then demonstrate that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark. Per section 1.7 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), the test for whether the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark is a relatively straightforward comparison. ...
2018-11-13 - Datos del caso