case=D2012-1909
page 4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the KAPPA trademark. The Panel finds that each of the Disputed Domain
Names 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. ...
2023-04-04 - Datos del caso
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.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-02-20 - 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 BDO trademark, in
light of the fact that it wholly incorporates the Complainant’s mark.
...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 relevant rights in a trademark and the disputed domain
name must be identical or confusingly similar to such trademark.
...
2023-05-19 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant is the owner of the trademark LULULEMON both by registration and
acquired reputation and that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademark
LULULEMON.
...Under this broader context, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names are
confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark for purposes of the first element of the Policy. See WIPO
Overview 3.0, sections 1.7 and 1.8.
...
2023-03-13 - Datos del caso
Policy, paragraph 4(a).
(i). Identical or Confusingly Similar
On the first element, the Complainant must prove that (1) it has rights in a trademark, and (2) the Domain
Name is identical or confusingly similar to this trademark. ...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
“[T]he mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar . . . to a famous or
widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith.” ...
2023-04-17 - Datos del caso
The Complainant maintains that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its MOBILE MINI mark. The Complainant cites UDRP decisions in which WIPO panelists have found domain names consisting of a complainant's mark followed by the term "sucks" to be confusingly similar for purposes of the first element of the Policy.
...International Electronic Communications Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's MOBILE MINI mark, in which the Complainant has demonstrated rights through registration and use. ...
2015-05-05 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The information provided by the Complainant in relation to its trade mark registrations has established its
rights in its TF1 trade mark.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-08-29 - Datos del caso
The disputed
domain name incorporates Complainant’s ASHLEY STEWART Marks in its entirety, coupled with the terms
“the” and “shop”, and therefore is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ASHLEY STEWART Marks.
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-09-14 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain names are
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. ...
2022-10-03 - Datos del caso
Complainant
The Complainant makes the following assertions:
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the DEKRA trademarks and the business designation in which the Complainant has rights. ...In the present case, the Panel must decide whether the Complainant has introduced elements of proof, which allow the Panel to conclude that its allegations are true.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well established in previous UDRP decisions that, where the domain name incorporates a complainant's registered trademark, this may be sufficient to establish that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2016-01-14 - Datos del caso
The Panel therefore finds that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark.
Furthermore, in making an enquiry as to whether a trade mark is identical or confusingly similar to a domain name, the domain extension, in this case ".com" should generally be disregarded (see Rohde & Schwarz GmbH & Co. ...In circumstances where a disputed domain name that is identical (or in the case of one domain name here confusingly similar) to a mark is being used for genuine noncommercial free speech, then panels tend to find that a respondent's right to criticize does not necessarily extend to registering and using a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant's trademark. ...
2017-06-09 - Datos del caso
Upon considering the above, the Panel determines that English shall be the language of the proceeding.
A. 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.
...In light of the Complainant's distinctive registered trademark and the Respondent's use of a confusingly similar disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. ...
2017-05-02 - Datos del caso
Upon considering the above, the Panel determines that English shall be the language of the proceeding.
A. 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.
...In light of the Complainant's distinctive registered trademark and the Respondent's use of a confusingly similar domain name, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...
2017-04-20 - 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 contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered rights in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademark because it includes the “Roland Garros” Trademark in its entirety.
...
2016-05-12 - Datos del caso
The Complainant then stands that the domain name is confusingly similar to its DECATHLON trademarks since the domain name is reproducing letter-by-letter the DECATHLON trademarks.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), the Complainant shall prove that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2017-10-12 - Datos del caso
The Complainant says that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its CVS trademark and the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its CVS CAREMARK trademark. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the CVS trademark and the CVS CAREMARK 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. ...
2019-09-13 - Datos del caso
First of all, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is highly confusingly similar to its prior trademarks, since it almost identically reproduces the CREDIT MUTUEL trademarks, the only difference between them being the inversion of the letters “e” and “u”, which is a typical case of typosquatting or typo-piracy.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), the Complainant shall prove that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2021-01-26 - Datos del caso
In Knot We Trust LTD,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0340.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Ownership of a trademark registration is generally sufficient evidence that a complainant has the requisite rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...In the instant proceeding, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s ADMIRAL mark as they each incorporate the ADMIRAL mark in its entirety. ...
2017-12-15 - Datos del caso
Jinsoo Yoon,
WIPO Case No. D2016-2351.
The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Red Bull trademark. The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Disputed Domain Name. ...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. ...
2018-04-06 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant contends that it has numerous registrations of the CASH CONVERTERS Mark, that its trademark registrations are valid and subsisting, and serve as prima facie evidence of Complainant’s ownership and the validity of the CASH CONVERTERS Mark. ...Complainant further contends that the Disputed Domain Name is identical and confusingly similar to the CASH CONVERTERS Mark pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). Respondent has not contested the assertions by Complaint that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark.
...
2015-01-14 - Datos del caso