A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To satisfy 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.
...A domain name which contains a common or obvious misspelling of a trademark is confusingly similar to the mark where the misspelled trademark remains the dominant or principal component of the domain name. ...
2015-11-03 - Datos del caso
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name incorporates the whole of the Complainant’s trademark CREDIT MUTUEL, which typically is considered sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the first element.
...Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, according to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has never been known under the name “Crédit Mutuel”. ...
2017-05-03 - Datos del caso
The Complainant adds that the inclusion of an additional term such as "verified" does not prevent the disputed domain name from being identical or confusingly similar to its trademark, but quite the opposite – it creates a false link with the Complainant's trademarks.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark, according to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has never been known under the wording "Crédit Mutuel". ...
2016-03-30 - Datos del caso
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names , and are confusingly similar to the trademark VALIUM seeing that they incorporate the Complainant's VALIUM trademark in its entirety.
...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), a complainant must prove that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights.
...
2016-06-10 - Datos del caso
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its family of registered "trader" formative marks for use in connection with classified advertising and that the Complainant is the senior user of these marks.
...It is appropriate to consider each of these requirements in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant asserts that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its family of "trader" marks and more specifically to its EQUIPMENT TRADER mark. ...
2017-10-27 - Datos del caso
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its mark COMERICA from which it differs only in the inclusion of an extra letter “c”. ...The comparison that must be made under this first requirement of the UDRP is between the disputed domain name and the complainant’s mark, so that the content of the web page cannot make a domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark if it is not, nor prevent it from being confusingly similar if it is. ...
2012-10-17 - Datos del caso
Having considered all the circumstances, this Panel determines under the Rules, paragraph 11(a) that English shall be the language of the proceeding.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), a complainant must prove that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights. ...Given that the disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s trademark VIBRAM in its entirety, adding a descriptive term “top” does not preclude the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark VIBRAM. ...
2010-10-05 - Datos del caso
Having considered all the circumstances, this Panel determines under the Rules, paragraph 11(a) that English shall be the language of the proceeding.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), a complainant must prove that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights. ...Given that the disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s trademarks VIBRAM and FIVEFINGERS in their entirety, adding the generic term “on sale” does not preclude the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademarks VIBRAM and FIVEFINGERS. ...
2010-10-05 - Datos del caso
Complainant
The Complainant alleges that the Disputed Domain Names in one way or another are either identical or confusingly similar to the Complainants' trade marks. For example, it argues that the disputed domain name reproduces the distinctive terms “instesa sanpaolo” with the change of the letter “T” with the letter “R”,, that in the keyboard layouts “querty” and “azerty” is the letter that precedes the “T”. ...Given the evidence provided, the Panel finds that the Respondents domain names, while not identical, are indeed confusingly similar to the Complainants marks”.).
The Panel therefore finds that the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights and therefore is sufficient to satisfy the first criterion set forth in paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2010-07-27 - Datos del caso
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), a complainant must prove that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights. ...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark QUNAR.COM. Accordingly, the Complainant has proven the first element required by paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2013-05-06 - Datos del caso
As evidence of bad faith, the Complainant draws the Panelist’s attention to the fact that the Respondent registered several other domain names identical to, or confusingly similar with well-known European trademarks, all of them pointing to pornographic websites. Panels have already concluded that Mr. ...Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the allegations referenced in the headings of paragraphs A.,B. and C. below.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark ASTI registered by the Complainant in several countries and the trademark ASTI was registered, for example, in Canada in 1988 (although by a different owner, the Complainant was registered as new owner by a decision dated January 5, 2004), Paraguay and Peru in 2003. ...
2004-07-08 - Datos del caso
The Panel finds that Complainant has established that the hyphenated domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark. The Channel Tunnel Group Ltd. v. Powell, ICANN Case No. D2000-0038. ...One who has constructive knowledge of the trademark, and who contacts the trademark owner and advises the owner that he has acquired a confusingly similar domain name which he intends to use in competition with the trademark owner, has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.
...
2000-04-12 - Datos del caso
Respondent’s Contentions
· Respondent registered a similar, but not identical or confusingly similar, domain name for the purpose of providing public commentary (Response p.1)...Identical or Confusingly Similar
Respondent’s disputed domain name differs from Complainant’s trade and service marks by the absence of a hyphen and an apostrophe. ...
2000-07-05 - Datos del caso
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(a) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the domain name is confusing similar to the Complaint’s registered trademark VELLUX, because it replicates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights in the VELLUX trademark, by virtue of U.S. ...
2008-02-01 - Datos del caso
Thus it must be concluded that all the four disputed domain names must be considered confusingly similar to the Complainant’s house mark.
The Respondent is using the domain names to direct consumers to a website with links to several other sites. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has proved evidence of its rights to several trademarks either consisting of KPMG alone or containing KPMG. ...
2006-08-02 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant’s registrations with the USPTO sufficiently establish Complainant’s rights in the MYSAP and SAP NETWEAVER marks. ...The Panel finds that Respondent’s domain name
is confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks, as the disputed domain
name simply combines the two marks in their entirety. ...
2006-10-19 - Datos del caso
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark AMBIEN in which it has rights. It argues that its trademark rights in AMBIEN are established through registration and that the mere adjunction of the descriptive term “facts” in conjunction with the Complainant’s trademark does not remove the domain name in dispute from being confusingly similar.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name in question is confusingly similar
with the trademarks registered for the Complainant. ...
2006-08-30 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The First Complainant owns a trademark registration for the name XENICAL. The domain name involves adding the words “buy-cheap-” to the front of it.
...Therefore, in accordance with previous panel decisions, the Panel concludes that the Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CIALIS mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The domain name is similar to the trademark because it uses the precise name which has no general meaning and two generic words in common usage. ...
2006-03-01 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under Rule 4(a)(i) the Complainant must show that the disputed domain name is “identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights”.
...D2006-1212, “(t)yposquatted domain names, if they have their desired effect, are by definition confusingly similar to trademarks”.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark.
...
2009-02-09 - Datos del caso
Complainant
Complainant contends that the domain names are confusingly similar to its MONCLER marks, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names; and that Respondent has registered and is using the domain names in bad faith.
...UDRP panels have consistently held that the use of a domain name confusingly similar to a well-known trademark in order to sell counterfeit products via the Internet is a typical case of registration and use in bad faith. ...
2011-05-03 - Datos del caso