Is “www.cisca.com” confusingly similar to the trademark CISCO? Is
“www.novia.com” confusingly similar to NOKIA? One or two letter
variation from a well-known trademark does not automatically produce a confusingly
similar domain name. ...[Complainant’s Response at 3]
Complainant suggests that the standard for an “identical or confusingly similar” mark under the U.S. Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”) can help inform what constitutes a “confusingly similar” domain name in the present dispute. ...
2004-07-14 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.1
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainants’ EROS marks. ...The fact that the Panel has found that is confusingly similar to Complainants’ EROS mark does not necessarily support a determination that an abbreviation for is also confusingly similar. ...
2011-04-11 - Case Details
D2000-0377 (July 15, 2000) ( confusingly
similar to the trademark GE);
Reuters Limited v. Global 2000, Inc., WIPO
Case No. D2000-0441 (July 13, 2000) ( confusingly
similar to REUTERS);
World Wrestling Federation Entertainment, Inc. v. ...Like our colleagues, this Panel concludes that is confusingly similar to AMCTV. It is confusingly similar for two reasons. First, "www" is the well-known acronym for "world wide web" and thus had no distinguishing capacity in a domain name context. ...
2003-06-24 - Case Details
There are 15 disputed domain names that do not meet one of the criteria for being confusingly similar (as stated in Kirchhof I) but these are still confusingly similar to one of the Complainant’s trademarks because they either contain the distinctive portion of the HOTEL INDIGO trademark (i.e. ...Accordingly, this Panel finds that these four disputed domain names are confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
It is less straightforward whether the disputed domain names in the remaining categories are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. ...
2011-01-18 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
A.1 Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered MEDIASITE trademarks. ...Previous UDRP panels have found that the use of a confusingly similar trademark to attract Internet users to the website associated with the confusingly similar domain name for pay per click income shall be evidence of use in bad faith. ...
2013-02-08 - Case Details
D2003-0696 (the domain name at issue is "nearly identical or confusingly similar" to complainant's mark when it "fully incorporate[s] said mark", holding , , and other domain names confusingly similar to complainant's PEPSI mark).
...Many UDRP decisions have found that domain names are confusingly similar to trademarks when the domain name incorporates the trademark in its entirety. See, e.g., PepsiCo, Inc., supra (a domain name is "nearly identical or confusingly similar" to a complainant's mark when it "fully incorporate[s] said mark", holding , , and other domains confusingly similar to complainant's PEPSI mark).
...
2010-09-13 - Case Details
D2002-0031), where
was found confusingly similar to LTD COMMODITIES,
INC., and Aurora Foods, Inc. v. David Paul Jaros (WIPO
Case No. ...However, such use is not bona fide and cannot confer legitimacy under Paragraph 4 (c) (i) of the Policy. The use of domain names which are confusingly similar to another’s trademark in order to draw a commission from sales to that other which were channeled through the confusingly similar domain names cannot be said to be in good faith. ...
2003-05-28 - Case Details
AAIM,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0403.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant must establish rights in a trademark and secondly that the disputed domain name is identical to or confusingly similar to the trademark in which Complainant has rights.
...D2000-0429 finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar).
The Panel finds that Complainant has failed to prove that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered trademarks for CINEMARK under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...
2012-02-07 - Case Details
The Panel finds that
the domain name is confusingly similar to the registered
YELLOW marks.
"Yellow" is a common word and there are many domain names using "yellow" that would not be confusingly similar to the registered YELLOW marks for common carrier freight services. ...D2001-0051
( confusingly similar to YAHOO! trademark); CSC Holdings,
Inc. v. Elbridge Gagne, WIPO Case No. D2003-0273
(June 18, 2003) ( confusingly similar to trademark AMC where
trademark designated television service).
...
2003-12-16 - Case Details
D2003-0696 (a domain name is "nearly identical or confusingly similar" to a complainant's mark when it "fully incorporate[s] said mark"; holding , , and other domains confusingly similar to complainant's PEPSI mark).
...D2003-0696 (a domain name is "nearly identical or confusingly similar" to a complainant's mark when it "fully incorporate[s] said mark"; holding , , and other domains confusingly similar to complainant's PEPSI mark).
...
2010-09-21 - Case Details
Similarly in the present case, the Respondent has made domain names confusingly similar to the Complainant’s name. The content on the website linked to the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s web pages, which according to the Complainant, is further evidence of the Respondent’s attempts to divert Internet users.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is required, under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, to establish its rights in the mark and demonstrate that the disputed domain name is either identical or confusingly similar to its mark.
...
2007-12-10 - Case Details
Identity or Confusing Similarity
Complainant asserted the following:
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s marks KATE SPADE. Other panels constituted under the Policy
have found domain names confusingly similar in virtually identical factual situations
to those presented in Complainant’s Complaint (and cites the following
cases to state that the addition of the generic top-level domain “.com”
to a mark is irrelevant in determining whether a domain name is confusingly
similar to a complainant’s mark: Pomellato S.p.A. v. ...FA098440
(finding to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s
ABSOLUT trademark.); Ecostyle BV v. IQ Management Corporation, WIPO
Case No. ...
2005-06-01 - Case Details
The Panel will now review each of the three cumulative elements set forth in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy to determine whether Complainant has complied with such requirements.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant relies on previous WIPO UDRP decisions
recognizing as “confusingly similar” and/or “virtually
identical” the use of terms that are a slight variation from a registered
mark. ...This is so because where a potential visitor, after typing in a confusingly similar domain name, reaches the Respondent’s website offering similar contents, there is an implied act of unfair competition (deception of the consumer). ...
2006-10-24 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(a) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ETS and TOEFL Trademarks. ...The Respondent is using its confusingly similar domain name to trade on the goodwill of the Complainant and to disrupt the business of the Complainant. ...
2007-06-06 - Case Details
The Complainant has rights in a trade or service mark, with which Respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar.
There are two requirements that the Complainant must establish under this paragraph; that it has rights in a trade or service mark, and that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar.
...I conclude that the domain name is clearly confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks. The domain name is confusingly similar to both the Complainant’s Delta Family of marks and Delta Air Lines marks. ...
2001-02-13 - Case Details
The First Complainant also asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its ENTERPRISE.COM mark in that it is identical save for the addition of the suffix “.bz”.
...The addition of “rentalcar.tv” mimics the RENT-A-CAR portion of the ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR mark, making the domain name confusingly similar to the ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR mark.
The Panel also finds that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant Enterprise Holdings, Inc.’s trademark ENTERPRISE.COM and confusingly similar to its trademarks ENTERPRISE.
...
2015-03-05 - Case Details
D2003-0541, (decided that is confusingly similar to the mark OSCAR); Caesars World v. Alaiksei Yahorau,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0513, (decided that is confusingly similar to the mark CAESARS); Nokia Corporation v. ...D2000–0102, (decided that is confusingly similar to the mark NOKIA).
The Panel considers that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.”
...
2010-12-01 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant must first establish that the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark. ...In this case, Respondent sells products that are similar to Complainant’s products using a confusingly similar mark with full knowledge of Complainant’s famous mark. ...
2016-06-28 - Case Details
D2001-0302 (May 18, 2001) [ confusingly similar to WALL STREET JOURNAL]; CSC Holdings, Inc. v. Elbridge Gagne, WIPO Case No. D2003-0273 (June 18, 2003) [omission of “.” made “wwwamctv.com” confusingly similar to “www.amctv.com” and AMC TV mark ]. ...Registration of multiple domain names that are confusingly similar to established trademarks is also evidence of bad faith. This is true under both American trademark law, see 15 U.S.C. §1125 (d)(B)(i)(VIII) (registration “of multiple domain names which the person knows are identical or confusingly similar to marks of others” is indicia of bad faith), and under the Policy. ...
2006-10-04 - Case Details
D2006-0211 (finding confusingly similar to WAL-MART); HSBC Holdings Plc v. David H. Gold,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0343, (finding confusingly similar to HSBC); F. ...D2006-0717 (finding confusingly similar to XENICAL) and Jay Leno v. Garrison Hintz,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0569 (finding confusingly similar to JAY LENO).
...
2010-09-16 - Case Details