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
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
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
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
In light of these circumstances, the Panel concludes that it will (1) accept the Complaint in English; and (2) issue a decision in English.
B. 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 created the disputed domain name which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark CONSEP with the knowledge of the Complainant’s famous trademarks and its business.
...
2019-05-17 - Datos del caso
Having considered the Complaint and the available evidence, the Panel finds the following:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry – a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trade mark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trade mark.
...For the purposes of comparing the disputed domain name with the Trade Mark, the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” can be disregarded.2 The Complainant’s submission is that “[A] domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark, when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name.” ...
2019-05-17 - 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
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
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
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
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
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the ACCELA trademark. ...That in the Panel’s opinion produces a result which is confusingly similar to the trademark, and indeed it is clear that was the Respondent’s intention.
It is also well established that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), in this case “.com”, does not affect the Disputed Domain Name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar. ...
2021-05-25 - Datos del caso
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
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
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