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
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
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
D2010-0842.
Here, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TURBOTAX mark, because it consists of a common and obvious misspelling of the trademark TURBOTAX at the second level. ...D2002-0775 (finding the domain name confusingly similar to the trademark WACHOVIA and the domain name ).
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy in establishing its rights in the TURBOTAX mark and in showing that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to this mark.
...
2018-11-09 - 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
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
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 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
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
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. ...See WIPO Overview 3.0, at section 1.9 (“A domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element.”); see also Express Scripts, Inc. v. ...
2021-06-08 - Datos del caso
D2020-2492 (finding to be confusingly similar to the ICIC BANK service mark); and Brewin Dolphin Limited v. Global Domain Privacy / Doudou Sow,
WIPO Case No. D2018-0184, (where was held to be confusingly similar to the mark, BREWIN DOLPHIN).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has demonstrated that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2021-03-19 - 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
Complainant
The Complainant makes the following contentions.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant owns the Trade Mark. The Disputed Domain Names are all identical to the Trade Mark apart from typographical errors.
...However, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s lack of a Response.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2021-04-15 - 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
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 is confusingly similar to that trademark for purposes of the Policy. See Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-04-08 - 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
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