A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has established registered in it ETS trademark. ...The Panel also accepts that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ETS trademark, in which it has rights. It is well established that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain “.org” does not avoid a finding that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, in this case the Complainant’s ETS trademark. ...
2019-06-11 - Datos del caso
Furthermore, it is well established that the addition of descriptive terms does not prevent a disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to complainant’s trademarks (see section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, Reuters Limited v. ...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks.
Complainant has therefore satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2019-08-22 - 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.
...On the basis of facts and circumstances discussed above the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BITFURY trademark and that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2019-08-20 - Datos del caso
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfactorily proven that it has registered trademark rights for DESCOVY.
...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.
B. ...
2019-06-25 - Datos del caso
The Domain Name reproduces entirely the Trademark. Thus, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademark. The addition of the term “com” connected by a hyphen is insufficient to avoid any likelihood of confusion.
...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.
...
2019-06-13 - 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 circumstances discussed above the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ROYAL UNIBREW trademark and that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2019-06-13 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel has no doubt that “Vontobel” is a term directly connected with the Complainant’s finance and banking services.
...It is already well established that the addition of a gTLD extension such as “.com” is typically irrelevant when determining whether a domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark.
As a result, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks, and that the Complainant has satisfied the first element of the Policy.
...
2020-08-20 - Datos del caso
Respondent
The Respondent did not submit any response to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. 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 registered the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, GEICO, with the knowledge of the Complainant’s world-wide famous business and its trademark.
...
2020-08-19 - 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
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name, is confusingly similar to its ALLIANZ trademark since the disputed domain name fully incorporates the ALLIANZ trademark.
...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.
...
2019-10-02 - Datos del caso
In particular, the Complainant asserts that:
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
- The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark, AGFA, in light of the fact that it wholly incorporates the Complainant’s mark.
...The Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the available evidence submitted by the Complainant and the Respondent’s two brief email communications.
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.
...
2019-10-02 - 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
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.
...Previous UDRP panels have held that the Top-Level Domain “.com” is not to be taken into account when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark.
In the light of the foregoing, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2019-08-28 - 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 HM and H&M trademark and that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2019-09-10 - Datos del caso
Therefore, the Domain Name could be considered virtually identical and/or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. ...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
B. ...
2020-10-29 - 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
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
Therefore, the Panel has decided that the language of the proceeding shall be in English and shall proceed with a decision in English.
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under the first element of the Policy, a complainant must prove that a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights (paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).
...The test for whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark is fairly straightforward and a domain name incorporating the entirety or dominant feature of the relevant mark will normally satisfy the threshold (Britannia Building Society v. ...
2020-03-13 - 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 IQOS trademark and that requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2020-03-12 - Datos del caso