A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: First, does Complainant have rights in a relevant mark; and, second, is the Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to that mark.
...D2000-0455 (August 25, 2000) (ADDVIL.com held confusingly similar to ADVIL); ESPN, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment, Inc., Nat. Arb. Forum Case No. FA95047 (July 21, 2000) (ESPNS.com held confusingly similar to ESPN).
...
2008-12-12 - Datos del caso
As the Respondent did not file a Response or otherwise reply to the Complainant’s contentions, except as noted above, the Panel shall decide the complaint on the basis of the Complainant’s submissions and such inferences that can be reasonably drawn from the failure to submit a Response as the Panel considers applicable (Rules, paragraph 14(b)).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name, , is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s PRUDENTIAL trade marks.
...It has been held that a domain name consisting of the complainant’s trademark and ending with the “.com” gTLD is confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark (see Sanofi-Aventis v. The Counsel Group, LLC,
WIPO Case No. ...
2008-09-23 - Datos del caso
Whether the Domain Name is Confusingly Similar to Complainant's Trademark
6.2. The Domain Name that is the subject of the Complaint is "iseekamerica.com". ...To summarize, as stated in 6.5 above the Respondent's Domain Name "iseekamerica.com" is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights and the Complainant succeeds under element 4 (a) (i) of the Uniform Policy. ...
2000-11-21 - Datos del caso
Also, no evidence of a possible license to Complainant to the EUTECH Mark has been provided.
b. Identical or confusingly similar
The Panel finds that the Domain Names are all confusingly similar to Complainant's ABB Marks.
...This fact however cannot, given the above mentioned likelihood of confusion, lead to the conclusion that the Domain Names are not identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s ABB Marks.
For clarity’s purpose, the Panel remarks that the conclusion that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the ABB Marks, leaves open the question whether or not the holder of the EUTECH Mark, which mark is also contained in the Domain Names, has any (better) rights to the Domain Names, as the Domain Names may also be confusingly similar to the EUTECH Mark. ...
2001-11-15 - Datos del caso
In other words, Respondent has through the use of a
confusingly similar domain name and webpage contents created a likelihood of confusion with the ROGAINE
Mark.
...Furthermore, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the ROGAINE Mark because it incorporates that
Mark in its entirety and adds the designation “Israel”, which does not prevent a finding of confusingly
similarity. ...
2023-06-09 - 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.
...Thus, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first element of the UDRP.
...
2021-08-31 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element that the Complainant must establish is that the disputed domain name is identical or
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
7. Decision...
2023-02-16 - Datos del caso
The
Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names which are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
RUNBUGGY trade mark is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services nor constitute legitimate
noncommercial or fair use under the Policy. ...The disputed domain names resolved to park pages
which advertise services that are similar to those offered by the Complainant, in order to mislead and divert
consumers by attracting them through confusingly similar domain names and then collecting revenue by
featuring “sponsored” links on their webpages. ...
2023-01-04 - Datos del caso
The Complainant also refers to a series of cases where a non-ASCII trademark was found to be confusingly similar to an IDN domain name if the trademark is widely known and at least phonetically similar to the disputed domain name.
...The Panel nevertheless finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known mark. The reason for this is based on first principles. ...
2011-04-21 - Datos del caso
The disputed domain name currently resolves to the home page of the Respondent's business (a copy of a hard-copy printout of that home pages appears in Annex A-7 to the Complaint) which depicts transportable toilets apparently similar to those currently offered by the Complainant.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(i) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name, , is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s PORTA-JOHN Mark.
...Hence, under paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel is directed to decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of the Complainant’s undisputed representations.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s PORTA-JOHN Mark.
...
2007-09-20 - Datos del caso
Therefore, the first issue is whether the Disputed Domain Name and the PS Mark are confusingly similar.
The Disputed Domain Name combines three elements: (1) Complainant’s PS Mark; (2) the term “insurance”; and (3) the suffix “.com.” ...Prior UDRP panels have recognized that the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety may be sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered mark. AT&T Corp. v. William Gormally,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0758 (finding confusingly similar to the ATT trademark); and Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. ...
2011-05-10 - Datos del caso
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name comprises the term “essjty” and the “.com” generic Top-Level Domain identifier, which may be ignored for the purpose of this assessment under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. The term “essjty” differs from the Complainant’s ESSITY trade mark by one letter (“j”) and one which is very similar to the “i” it replaces.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ESSITY trade mark.
...
2018-04-18 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it is the owner of registered trademark rights for the mark GSB GOLD
STANDARD. ...Preliminary Issue: Consolidation of Multiple Complainants
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests, and C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-03-13 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s trademark SOLVAY with the “a” replaced by an
“e”, the addition of “com”, and the gTLD “.com”.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-10-18 - Datos del caso
The Panel further finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Mark.
page 3
Respondent’s addition of a letter – an “l” between the letters “c” and “k”” – is an example of an intentional
misspelling of a trademark that results in a domain name that is confusingly similar to the 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...
2022-06-28 - Datos del caso
Complainant
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name, which includes the BERLITZ Trademark in its entirety, followed by the phrase “openyourworld” (the “Phrase”) is confusingly similar to the BERLITZ Trademark. Complainant notes that the incorporation of a registered trademark in its entirety, regardless of the additional Phrase, is sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar. ...Complainant contends that the disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the BERLITZ Trademark and is confusingly similar to the BERLITZ Trademark. Complainant contends that the addition of the gTLD and the Phrase are not sufficient to change the overall impression of the disputed domain name as being confusingly similar to Complainant’s BERLITZ Trademark.
...
2018-08-10 - Datos del caso
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
1. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant is one of the top 20 pharmaceutical companies worldwide. Complainant owns the mark TRAJENTA, which has been registered since 2007 (International Trademark Reg. ...See Rules, paragraph 14(b).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established its rights in the mark TRAJENTA through the evidence of its International Trademark Registration No. 935517.
...
2020-03-16 - Datos del caso
The disputed domain name was registered on July 1, 2020, and directs to a website of a company offering similar services as the Complainant.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s registered trademark ETX CAPITAL in combination with the non-distinctive element “global” and is therefore confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. ...The Panel is of the opinion that applying these principles to this case, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
Therefore, the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is met.
...
2020-11-17 - Datos del caso
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well established that where a domain name consists of a misspelling of a trade mark such that the mark
is recognisable, as in this case, the domain name is confusingly similar. ...Numerous UDRP panels have held that substitution of a zero for the letter “o” results in
a domain name that is virtually identical with the mark, and confusingly similar (see Capitol Federal Savings
Bank v. Moniker Privacy Services / Charlie Kalopungi, WIPO Case No. ...
2022-10-26 - Datos del caso
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the aforementioned trademark
for the purpose of the UDRP, and therefore the first requirement is met under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-08-29 - Datos del caso