A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name, is confusingly similar to the first Complainant’s trademark CIC, which is reproduced in the domain name with the generic word “enterprise” added to it. ...The domain name, is confusingly similar to the first Complainant’s trademark FILBANQUE reproducing as it does the first six letters of the trademark. ...
2006-05-16 - Case Details
The Complainant believes that the Domain Names at stake are confusingly similar to its marks because they are common misspellings of BELLSOUTH and virtually identical and confusingly similar to such mark. ...D2000-1446, an Administrative Panel found that visually,
and were confusingly similar to VERISIGN. More recently,
administrative panels found that was confusingly similar to
FREE LOTTO (WIPO Case No. ...
2003-06-13 - Case Details
Mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or widely known
trademark by an unaffiliated entity, can of itself create the presumption of bad faith. ...The very purpose in the
Respondent choosing the (confusingly similar) Domain Name it did was to deliberately create a false impression
of association with the Complainant. ...
2024-05-15 - Case Details
D2003-0994 (finding that disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the marks which they misspell); Dow Jones & Co. v. Powerclick, Inc.,
WIPO Case No.. D2000-1259 (holding that the deliberate introduction of errors or changes does not render the Respondent’s domain name less confusingly similar to the core trademark held by the Complainant).
For these reasons, the Respondent’s disputed Domain Name must be found confusingly similar to the Complainant’s TURBOTAX trademark.
...
2020-08-18 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant makes the following contentions.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
First, the Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark and
branded services AMUNDI. ...A. 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 trademarks registered by the Complainant.
...
2022-04-28 - Case Details
The Policy sets out four circumstances that may evidence a Respondent’s bad faith registration and use under Paragraph 4(a)(iii), see Policy, paragraph 4(b), as well as examples of circumstances that may evidence a Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, see Policy, paragraph 4(c).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant must establish that the disputed domain name is either identical or confusingly similar to its mark. ...Complainant must, therefore, establish that the domain name is “confusingly similar” to the mark. Complainant’s sole argument is that the domain name “incorporates [the] OFFICETEAM mark in its entirety.” ...
2006-08-30 - 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 trade mark and secondly demonstrate that the disputed domain names are identical to or confusingly similar to the trade mark in which Complainant has rights.
...D2001-0068 (finding that the domain name incorporated the complainant’s mark in its entirety and holding it to be confusingly similar to complainant’s EBAY mark); Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Kumar Patel, NAF Claim No. 642141, (finding confusingly similar to complainant’s AUXILIUM name and mark); MasterCard International Incorporated v. ...
2010-11-15 - Case Details
Other UDRP panels have considered similar domain names with generic additions to be confusingly similar and ordered transfers in similar circumstances...The Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith (Paragraph 4(a)(iii)).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There are two requirements that a Complainant must establish under this paragraph; that it has rights in a trade or service mark, and that the domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the marks.
...
2005-03-03 - Case Details
These elements are discussed below.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark and, second, are the Disputed Domain Names identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
...A domain name is “nearly identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark when it fully incorporate[s] said mark.” See PepsiCo. Inc. v. ...
2015-03-18 - Case Details
The disputed domain name, , incorporates in full both the Complainant’s MOTOROLA and RAZR marks. Therefore, that name is confusingly similar to those marks. Likewise, the disputed domain names, and , are confusingly similar to the RAZR and RAZR V3 marks owned by the Complainant.
...D2000-1493 (finding the disputed domain name, <4microsoft2000.com>, to be confusingly similar to the trademark, MICROSOFT).
Finally, the Panel can see that, arguably, the disputed domain name, , may not be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s RAZR mark because that name is dominated by a common term, “razor.” ...
2012-10-08 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has proved that it has rights in the CVS Trademark.
...D2013-0564, the UDRP panel has found the disputed domain name containing the words“CVS” and “store” confusingly similar to the CVS Trademark.
The CVS trademark is clearly recognizable at the beginning of both disputed domain names and, for the purpose of the Policy, the disputed domain names are both confusingly similar with the CVS Trademarks in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2020-07-28 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has shown that it has registered trademark rights for AAA, and that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. ...D2015-1584 (the domain name is confusingly similar to AAA Marks for credit services); The American Automobile Association, Inc. v. Top Business Names, supra (the domain name is confusingly similar to AAA Marks for automotive goods and services); see also The American Automobile Association, Inc. v. ...
2017-03-03 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(a) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HOLLISTER CO. trademark
(b) Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no legitimate interest or rights in respect of the domain name . ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established its rights in the HOLLISTER CO. ...
2007-06-05 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainants
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainants’ marks.
Respondent’s Domain Name fully incorporates Complainants’ famous CITI Mark,
is confusingly similar to Complainants’ CITI and CITIBANK Marks, and mimics
Complainants’ CITIBANK Domain Names. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel agrees with Complainants’ assertions that Respondent has registered
a domain name that mimics Complainants’ domain name, and that it is an obvious
and minor alteration of Complainants’ famous CITIBANK mark and domain names,
which leads the domain name at issue to be confusingly similar with Complainants’
trade marks.
...
2003-08-18 - Case Details
Complainant
Respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly
similar to Complainant’s registered Shotgun News trademark in that it is a deliberate
misspelling of the publication's name. ...The Panel will analyze each of the elements below.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks in SHOTGUN NEWS. ...
2004-01-27 - Case Details
Lars Stork,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0628 (finding confusingly similar to WAL-MART trademark); Inter-IKEA Systems B.V. v. Evezon Co. Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0437 (finding confusingly similar to IKEA trademark).
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its mark for the following reasons:
a) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark DIRECTV;
b) There is no substantial difference between the Complainant’s mark and the disputed domain name which merely adds the geographical term “argentina”.
...
2014-10-09 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark and, second, is the Disputed Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. ...D2004-0117 (a domain name incorporating a well-known trademark combined with a geographically descriptive term is confusingly similar to the trademark); Inter-IKEA Systems B.V. v. Hoon Huh,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0438 (the addition of the term “korea” in does not prevent the domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark).
...
2020-05-15 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has proved that it has established rights in EASYBREATH Trademark since 2013.
...It is well accepted that a domain name that wholly incorporates a trademark is confusingly similar to that trademark for purposes of the Policy, see, e.g., Six Continent Hotels, Inc. v. ...
2018-05-07 - Case Details
iii) The fact that the Respondent has a domain name that contains marks and registrations owned by the Complainants leads to the inevitable conclusion that Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to registrations in which the Complainants have rights.
(iv) The domain name is confusingly similar to the SHAW Registrations and the SHAW Marks. ...iii) That the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A Identical or Confusingly Similar
Two separate issues fall for consideration. (1) Do the Complainants have rights in the mark and (2) is the domain name identical or confusingly similar to any such mark. ...
2007-05-11 - Case Details
Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp.,
WIPO Case No. D2016-2063 in which that panel took a similar view with regard to the addition of the term “free”. Accordingly this Panel finds that the is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark 3DS MAX.
...Whether that is so or not the Panel nevertheless finds that the combination of “revit” with “tofm” does not detract from the fact that the dominant part of the disputed domain name is REVIT and that accordingly is confusingly similar to the mark REVIT.
The Panel therefore finds that is confusingly similar to the marks AUTODESK and ATC in which the Complainant has rights, that is confusingly similar to the mark AUTODESK in which the Complainant has rights, that <3dsmax-edu.com> is confusingly similar to the mark 3DS MAX in which the Complainant has rights, that is confusingly similar to the mark 3DS MAX in which the Complainant has rights and that is confusingly similar to the mark REVIT in which the Complainant has rights, within Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy..
...
2020-06-30 - Case Details