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
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
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has registered the GILEAD trademark in various jurisdictions around the world, and the ADVANCING ACCESS trademark in the United States. ...A well-established consensus view among UDRP panels is that “a domain name is 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”. ...
2021-03-31 - Datos del caso
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its ArcelorMittal trademark since it contains the trademark in its entirety and the addition of the letter “s” makes this case an example of typosquatting.
...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.
...
2021-03-30 - 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
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
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 is satisfied that the Complainant has proved that it has rights in the trademark ELECTROLUX.
...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the Complainant’s ELECTROLUX trademark and that the conditions of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy have been fulfilled.
...
2021-10-29 - Datos del caso
It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, where appropriate, will decide consistent with the consensus views captured therein.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy it should be established that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the complainant has rights.
...As decided in previous UDRP decisions, the practice of typosquatting creates domain names that are confusingly similar to a relevant trademark, as has occurred in this case. See section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.
...
2021-11-30 - Datos del caso
Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...It has also been established by prior UDRP panels that incorporating a trademark in its entirety into a domain name can be sufficient to establish that the domain name is confusingly similar to a registered trademark. Numerous UDRP panels have recognised that the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark. ...
2021-11-16 - Datos del caso
As long established by previous UDRP panels, this may be sufficient to determine that a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
The addition of the French possessive adjective “ma”, meaning “my” in English, and the use of a dash between “ma” and the Complainant’s trademark does not prevent the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
...Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
The Panel finds that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is met.
...
2021-11-24 - Datos del caso
Complainant
Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar with the BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM Marks pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
Complainant further contends that the addition of the letters “im”, “m” or “h” to the BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM Marks and the deletion of the hyphen are not sufficient to escape the finding that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM Marks. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant contends that it has numerous registrations of the BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM Marks. ...
2021-04-21 - Datos del caso
In Knot We Trust LTD,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0340.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Ownership of a nationally registered trademark constitutes prima facie evidence that the complainant has the requisite rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...It is furthermore 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 word or suffix. ...
2020-08-04 - 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
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
This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark or trademarks and, second, is the Disputed Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to those trademarks.
...Thus, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SEARA Mark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant.
...
2021-03-12 - Datos del caso