A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the UNIVERSAL GIFT CARD trademark. ...It is well established that the Top-Level-Domain (“TLD”), in this case “.com”, does not affect the Disputed Domain Name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0429.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and hence the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...
2021-12-14 - Datos del caso
The addition of the generic Top-Level-Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to the disputed domain name is irrelevant to the confusingly similar analysis.
Respondent is neither affiliated with, nor has it been licensed or permitted to use Complainant’s FACEBOOK Mark. ...Panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a widely known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4).
...
2021-12-28 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The evidence presented to the Panel demonstrates that the Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations for VALERO in the United States.
...As numerous prior UDRP panels have recognized, the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety or a dominant feature of a trademark is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark. See section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) and also 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” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2021-12-06 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The evidence presented demonstrates that the Complainant is the owner of several United States trademark registrations for MARLBORO, as well as of the domain name . ...Also, prior UDRP panels have recognized that the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety or a dominant feature of a trademark is sufficient to establish that the domain name is confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered mark. See section 1.7, WIPO Overview 3.0.
The Panel finds therefore that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been proved by the Complainant, i.e., the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
...
2021-12-01 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The evidence presented demonstrates that the Complainant is the owner of several United States trademark registrations for MARLBORO, as well as of the domain name . ...Also, prior UDRP panels have recognized that the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety or a dominant feature of a trademark is sufficient to establish that the domain name is confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered mark. See section 1.7, WIPO Overview 3.0.
The Panel finds therefore that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been proved by the Complainant, i.e., the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
...
2021-12-01 - Datos del caso
The third element a complainant must establish is that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establishes that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, as the Complainant’s trademark is reproduced in its entirety, with the word “shipping” and a hyphen also included in the disputed domain name. ...
2021-11-16 - Datos del caso
Complainant
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its YSL trademark as it incorporates the whole trademark.
As numerous prior UDRP panels have recognized, the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety may be sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered mark. ...The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark YSL.
The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has therefore, been met.
...
2021-11-15 - Datos del caso
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered a confusingly similar domain name being fully aware of the Complainant’s famous TURBOTAX trademark. The deliberate misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark by the omission of the letters “ur” constitutes typosquatting. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant does have registered trademark rights in the trademark TURBOTAX by virtue of the registrations referenced in section 4 of this Decision.
...
2020-07-31 - Datos del caso
The third element a complainant must establish is that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...As the disputed domain name includes the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety combined with a descriptive words, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and hence the first element of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...
2020-03-04 - Datos del caso
First, the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights, as each of the disputed domain names consists of the Complainant’s trademark AGFA in its entirety plus one single digit number. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
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).
...
2020-02-26 - Datos del caso
Complainant
The Complainant makes the following submissions.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the registered owner of trade marks in numerous jurisdictions. The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trade Mark.
...The onus of proving these elements is on the Complainant even though the Respondent failed to submit a response.
A. 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.
...
2020-04-17 - 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, under the circumstances of this case, the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Names that are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark is suggestive of bad faith registration and use. See Ebay Inc. v. ...
2020-04-23 - Datos del caso
The Respondent chose the disputed domain name specifically because it is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and would create an association with the Complainant’s trademark. ...The third element a complainant must establish is that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...
2020-10-21 - Datos del caso
The third element a complainant must establish is that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...As the disputed domain name includes the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety combined with a dictionary term, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and hence the first element of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...
2020-10-16 - Datos del caso
The third element a complainant must establish is that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s respective trademark and hence the first element of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...
2019-06-03 - Datos del caso
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to or confusingly similar with the Marks, the notoriety of which is said to be evidenced by the media coverage and publicity submitted by the Complainant.
...Section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) provides that “[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”.
The Panel accepts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Marks. ...
2020-03-31 - Datos del caso
Complainant
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ADOBE trademark, as the Disputed Domain Names wholly incorporate the Complainant’s trademark or a misspelling of it with the addition of the generic terms “meeting” or “connect” or a misspelling of the terms, along with the “.ir” country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”).
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complaint’s ADOBE trademarks. ...
2020-07-03 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The evidence presented in the Complaint demonstrates that the Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations for ZIPRECRUITER around the world as well as several domain names comprising the ZIPRECRUITER trademark.
...Previous UDRP panels have consistently held 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” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2019-12-03 - Datos del caso
Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademarks. The Complainant argues that the Domain Name contains the Trademarks with a reversed order of letters, so-called typosquatting. ...Only if all three elements are fulfilled can the Panel grant the remedy requested by the Complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP requires two elements to be proved. A disputed domain name should be (i) identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, (ii) in which a complainant has rights.
...
2020-01-24 - 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. ...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.
...
2020-01-22 - Datos del caso