Accordingly, the Panel determines that the language of this administrative proceeding should be English.
B. 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.
...Consequently, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's BHP BILLITON trademark.
Previous UDRP panels have ruled that the mere addition of a non-significant element does not sufficiently differentiate the domain name from the registered trademark: "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" (Britannia Building Society v. ...
2014-11-18 - Datos del caso
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant produced evidence that it owns extensive trade mark registrations in the term COKE. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade marks and therefore that the Complainant fulfills paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2011-09-13 - Datos del caso
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant states that the use of the totality of its trademark in the disputed domain name makes the latter confusingly similar to its trademark. ...In addition, domain names such as the Respondent’s have repeatedly been found to be confusingly similar to the owners’ trademarks in UDRP proceedings. Reuters Limited v. Global Net 2000 Inc.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2013-05-17 - Datos del caso
The Respondent has failed to file a formal Response in these proceedings and is therefore in default and the
Panel may draw appropriate inferences therefrom.
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.
...The addition of the generic terms HOTEL and CASINO are merely descriptive in the Complainant’s trademarks and does not prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy satisfied.
...
2012-10-03 - Datos del caso
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
The Complainant further contends that the disputed domain name exactly reproduces the trademark INTESA SANPAOLO. ...There is no doubt that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first element of the Policy.
...
2014-08-27 - Datos del caso
Having so established, the Complainant goes on to allege that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the VIRGIN mark because the Respondent’s domain name incorporates the Complainant’s mark in its entirety. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s VIRGIN mark.
The Complainant has thus met the first threshold of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2013-11-22 - Datos del caso
This is sufficient to satisfy the requirement that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights (see also Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0903 wherein the UDRP panel found that “when a domain name incorporates a complainant’s mark in its entirety, it is confusingly similar to that mark despite the addition of other words”). Any added generic words or phrases (“4free”) do not cure this illegitimate use of the Complainant’s trademark RED BULL, neither are they sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name is not confusingly similar to the trademark RED BULL.
...
2013-10-16 - Datos del caso
In that UDRP decision, the domain name was also found confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
Also, as determined in previous UDRP cases (see Grundfos A/S v. ...Therefore, the Panel considers that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Community Trademark BETS10.
Hence, the Panel is of the opinion that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BETS10 trademark.
...
2013-08-27 - Datos del caso
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
A.1 Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant submits that the domain name in dispute, , is essentially identical and confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered trademarks for or including GATEWAY and its “www.gateway.com” website, with the only difference between the domain name in dispute and Complainant’s trademarks for or including GATEWAY being the doubling of the letter “e,” in order to attract Internet users who mistakenly type an extra letter when trying to reach Complainant’s “www.gateway.com” website. ...AAIM,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0403.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy the Complainant must establish rights in a trademark and secondly that the domain name in dispute is identical to or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2008-03-18 - Datos del caso
Michael Robertson, WIPO Case No.
D2000-0009.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has submitted evidence to prove that it holds exclusive rights to the trademarks “LEXAR” and “LEXAR MEDIA”. ...D2000-0587, “‘typosquatting,’ is a practice that
has been condemned and been found to be confusingly similar to the marks which
they mimic.”
In light of the above, the Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks LEXAR and LEXAR MEDIA in which Complainant has rights. ...
2005-02-09 - Datos del caso
D2001-0055 (finding ,
confusingly similar to the AOL and AOL.COM trademarks;
Costco Wholesale Membership Inc., Costco Wholesale Corporation v. ...Similarly, UDRP panels have found bad faith in the
“plundering” of a legitimately registered mark by use of a confusingly
similar domain name that diverts users to an unrelated website. See Costco,
supra, WIPO Case No. ...
2005-05-27 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant asserts that it is the owner of the trademark BUTTERFIELD & ROBINSON, and that Respondent's Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
...The omission of spaces between words of a trademark is also of no significance in determining whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. See Red Bull GmbH v. Emory Virgil,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0381 (citing Tarjeta Naranja S.A. v. ...
2009-07-27 - Datos del caso
Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainants' contentions or to the Panel's Order No.1 inviting Respondent to comment on his intended use of the domain name.
6. Discussion and Findings
a. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainants have the burden to show that Respondent's domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainants have rights. ...D2000-0662 (September 19, 2000), the panel first concluded 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.” ...
2009-06-09 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the domain names at issue are confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights.
...D2002-1115 (addition of
generic words “healthcare” to form domain
name deemed “confusingly similar to the BAYER trademark”); Aventis
Pharma SA., Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH v. Jonathan Valicenti, WIPO
Case No. ...
2006-08-03 - Datos del caso
Complainant
The Complainant argues that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its registered and well-known PRUDENTIAL mark and that there is no evidence that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in using a confusingly similar Domain Name. ...Indeed, the website formerly associated with the Domain Name was headed “Prudential Offshore Services”.
The Panel concludes that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the PRUDENTIAL mark for purposes of this element of the Complaint.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant asserts, and the Respondent does not deny, that the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent's use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant's PRUDENTIAL mark.
...
2009-09-23 - Datos del caso
Policy, paragraph 4(a).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a complainant to prove that the disputed domain name is “identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which [it] has rights.”
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SHAW Trademark and that Complainants have proven the first element of the Policy.
...
2009-10-26 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has trademark rights in the name FENDI.
The first element that the Complainant must establish is that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. ...Numerous panels have also held that using a domain name confusingly similar to a Complainant’s mark to link to websites of competitors constitutes bad faith:
- WIPO Case No. ...
2007-03-22 - Datos del caso
It has been consistently held in numerous UDRP decisions that domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark “when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name”, see Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...Therefore, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark, in which the Complainant has rights and the Complainant has satisfied the first requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2011-05-06 - Datos del caso
Complainant
In its Complaint, Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its federally-registered MCKERNAN mark and a related MCKERNAN PACKAGING CLEARING HOUSE mark. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name registered by Respondent is confusingly similar to Complainant’s federally-registered MCKERNAN mark.
...
2007-12-21 - Datos del caso
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed in this UDRP proceeding, Complainant must meet three requirements that will be considered in turn below.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant contends (and the Panel accepts as uncontroverted) that it has rights in the Complainant Trademarks and that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar thereto.
...Thus the Panel finds this Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark ALLEGRA.
In conclusion, the Panel accepts Complainant’s contentions that it has rights in the Complainant Trademarks and that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar thereto, and so concludes that the first requirement of the Policy is met.
...
2007-07-09 - Datos del caso