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 NINTENDO SWITCH Trademarks. In this Complaint, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s NINTENDO SWITCH Trademarks because, disregarding the “.com” generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), the SWITCH trademark is contained in its entirety within the disputed domain name. ...
2021-06-30 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first issue here is whether the Complainant has protectable rights in the BOX APPLIANCE Mark. ...It is well-established that a domain name that wholly incorporates a trademark may be deemed confusingly similar to that trademark for purposes of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7 (where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing.
...
2021-06-29 - Datos del caso
Complainant
The following is a summary of the main assertions of the Complainant.
The domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Respondent has created a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s RITALIN trademark. ...Section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the RITALIN trademark for the purposes of the Policy and thus paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been established.
...
2021-07-19 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the BUREAU VERITAS trademark. The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to this 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. ...
2021-05-28 - 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 has created a disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, HARTMANN with the knowledge of the Complainant’s world‑wide famous brand and its business. ...
2018-10-24 - Datos del caso
Thus, the Panel finds that disregarding the gTLD suffix “.bet”, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the SHELL marks.
The Panel therefore holds that Complainant fulfils the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...In other words, Respondent has, through the use of a confusingly similar domain name and webpage contents, created a likelihood of confusion with the SHELL marks. ...
2018-08-28 - Datos del caso
Accordingly the Panel considers the Complaint can properly proceed in respect of all the Disputed Domain Names.
Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel considers the Disputed Domain Names and are each confusingly similar to the Complainant’s TINDER trademark. ...The evidence establishes these domain names are part of that effort and the Panel on balance concludes they are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s TINDER trademark.
It is also well established that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), in this case “.com,.org or .net”, 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. ...
2020-07-16 - Datos del caso
page 4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel holds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SODEXO
trademarks.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-12-19 - Datos del caso
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”. ...In other words, Respondent has, through the use of confusingly similar disputed domain name, created a likelihood of confusion with the MADAME ALEXANDER marks. ...
2021-12-10 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name is “identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights”.
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights, and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2021-12-02 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the SPLUNK trademark. The Panel finds that each Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to this 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. ...
2020-05-18 - 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 ALLEN & OVERY trademarks.
...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.
...
2020-04-22 - Datos del caso
These differences are insufficient to prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s PETSMART trade marks.
The Complainant says that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has produced evidence of its trade and service mark registrations for PETSMART, including the mark in respect of which full details are set out above.
...
2019-04-10 - Datos del caso
Complainant
The Complainant alleges that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CARREFOUR Trademark in view of it incorporates the Complainant’s Trademark in its entirety; and is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BANQUE CARREFOUR Trademark. ...In this case the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known CARREFOUR Trademark and was obviously registered to primarily intend to disrupt the Complainant’s business.
...
2019-06-06 - Datos del caso
Therefore, according to Complainant, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar with Complainant’s
trademarks OBAGI and OBAGI MEDICAL, fulfilling paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-12-03 - Datos del caso
Complainant argues that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademark SODEXO, so
much so that the disputed domain names will be perceived as official websites linked to Complainant´s
business.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-12-10 - Datos del caso
case=D2000-0140
page 4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well established in previous UDRP decisions that, where the disputed domain name incorporates a
complainant’s registered trademark, this may be sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy. ...In view of the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s INSTA trademarks, in which the Complainant has demonstrated rights to the satisfaction of
the Panel.
...
2024-11-11 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established its rights in the trade mark ABN AMRO BANK and the service mark ABN AMRO.
For the purpose of determining whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to these marks, the gTLD “.com” is disregarded as this is a technical requirement of registration. ...
2020-04-01 - Datos del caso
Complainant
The Complainant contends that each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied in the present case, as follows:
(a) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant maintains that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered trademark in which the Complainant has rights. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is required to establish the two following elements: (1) that it has trademark rights, and, if so, (2) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark(s).
...
2019-10-29 - Datos del caso
However, it indicates that the TLD “.cam” is very similar to the TLD “.com”. As a consequence, the disputed domain name is visually confusingly similar to its main domain name .
...Taking the foregoing provisions into consideration the Panel finds as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant must first establish rights in a trademark or service mark and secondly establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark.
...
2020-01-10 - Datos del caso