The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its COMERICA mark because it incorporates the exact mark in its entirety. The Complainant further alleges that the addition of the words "credit" and "union" do not make the disputed domain name distinctive.
...The Panel also finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's COMERICA mark. First, the disputed domain name contains the mark in its entirety. ...
2017-12-22 - Datos del caso
Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered trademarks ZIONS and ZIONSBANK.COM and identical to the Complainant's registered trademark ZIONSBANK.
...To be successful, the Complainant must prove in this administrative proceeding that each of the aforesaid three elements is present (paragraph 4(a) of the Policy).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's trademark ZIONS BANK and confusingly similar to the Complainant's other two trademarks. ...
2017-06-21 - Datos del caso
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered marks.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...To be successful, the Complainant must prove in this administrative proceeding that each of the aforesaid three elements is present (paragraph 4(a) of the Policy).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks. This is a classic case of typosquatting where a domain name is identical to a trademark except for the addition, deletion, transposition or substitution of a letter. ...
2017-06-15 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name differs from Complainant's fanciful mark only by the assertion of the letter "r" within the mark. The fact that it is being used to resolve to a web site which features links which consist of or incorporate Complainant's marks further establish that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's registered trademarks. Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Respondent's registered trademarks.
...
2017-03-28 - Datos del caso
Complainant
Complainant submits that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its CMA CGM trademarks as it contains the well-known CMA CGM trademark in its entirety. ...The Panel will proceed to analyze whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied in this proceeding.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant must first of all establish rights in a trademark or service mark and secondly that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights.
...
2015-11-26 - Datos del caso
Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to Complainant the Domain Name is confusingly similar to both its Trademark and Tradename, since the Domain Name contains a common or obvious misspelling from Complainant's Trademark and Tradename, where the misspelling remains the dominant factor or prominent element of the Domain Name, . ...The Panel therefore finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's Trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant must demonstrate that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. ...
2015-12-23 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name consists of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) .com preceded by the Second-Level Domain (“SLD”) “getautodesk,” which consists of Complainant’s AUTODESK mark and the English word “get” or “acquire”. The use of a standard English word which implies that one can acquire the goods identified by the trademark which follows in a domain name is to create a domain name which is confusingly similar to the trademark to which the English word is attached. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AUTODESK mark.
...
2016-04-05 - Datos del caso
Complainant
Complainant submits that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the CRUISEWINKEL trademark and tradename as it contains the CRUISEWINKEL trade name and trademark in its entirety without the letter "e".
...In accordance with article 10.3 of the Regulations, the Complaint shall in that event be granted, unless the Panel considers it to be without basis in law or in fact.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to article 2.1(a) of the Regulations, Complainant must establish that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or trade name in which Complainant has rights.
...
2016-07-11 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has alleged that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HUNT BROTHERS PIZZA trademarks and service marks and designs in that it consists of Complainant’s marks but for the addition of the plural additive “s” to the word pizza in the disputed domain name, . It has long been found that the conversion of a mark from the singular to the plural by the addition of an “s” is confusingly similar to the mark so converted. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark and design.
...
2017-09-13 - Datos del caso
In the disputed domain name, the letter "e" of the trademark LOWE'S is replaced with the letter "w" forming the word "lowws" that is phonetically identical to the Complainant's trademark and is visually confusingly similar to it. This conduct constitutes typosquatting, which results in creating a domain name that is confusingly similar to a complainant's trademark as held by prior UDRP decisions (Edmunds.com, Inc v. ...Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant and that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2017-06-21 - Datos del caso
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complaint must prove the following:
(i) The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...The Panel also finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s COMERICA mark. First, the disputed domain names contain the mark in its entirety. ...
2018-01-23 - Datos del caso
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant submits that it owns many trademark registrations for the trademark NATURA around the world, including the registrations listed in paragraph 4.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant owns registered trademark rights in the NATURA trademark by virtue of the trademark registrations listed in paragraph 4 above.
...
2014-10-29 - Datos del caso
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the BALFOUR BEATTY mark. It incorporates BALFOUR BEATTY, with the exception of an additional letter, "r". ...See Rules, paragraph 14(b).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established its rights in the mark through its European Union trademark registration.
...
2018-07-12 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established the fact that it has valid trademark rights for MICHELIN in several classes.
...The 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 creates a presumption of bad faith. ...
2018-06-07 - Datos del caso
Complainant
The Complainant contends as follows:
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name and the trademark “H1Z1” are confusingly similar. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. ...
2018-12-18 - Datos del caso
MIC,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0748.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under the first element of the Policy, Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in the AIR FRANCE mark and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its mark. ...Instead, the evidence shows that Respondent registered a domain name which incorporates, and is confusingly similar to, a very well-known service mark. The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that Respondent wished to take advantage of that confusion.
...
2018-09-17 - Datos del caso
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name and the trademark NORTHERN TRUST are confusingly similar. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
...
2019-03-15 - Datos del caso
Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel must first determine whether the disputed domain name , is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph (4)(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2020-07-30 - Datos del caso
Accordingly, the Panel rules that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark, and that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of the first element under the Policy.
...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The registration of the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks, was clearly intended to mislead and divert consumers to the disputed domain name. ...
2020-03-04 - Datos del caso
These elements are:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is, indeed, confusingly similar to the SECURITAS trademark, as the latter is entirely incorporated in the disputed domain name.
...
2020-11-05 - Datos del caso