Michael
Robertson, WIPO Case No. D2000-0009).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel agrees with Complainant’s allegation that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s SMITHFIELD mark.
...The Parties
A. Complainant
B. Respondent
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith...
2023-03-10 - Case Details
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 disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark.
...Hence the Panel concludes that the domain name is, for the purposes of the Policy, confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks.
The Complainant has therefore shown that it has the appropriate rights in a trademark, and that the domain name is confusingly similar to this mark. ...
2008-02-18 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(a) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SNCF trademarks, including French Trademark Registration Nos. 05 3 344 303 and 08 3 594 312 and International Trademark Registration Nos. 878 372 and 1001673.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant does have trademark rights in the mark SNCF by virtue of French Trademark Registration Nos. 05 3 344 303 and 08 3 594 312 and International Trademark Registration Nos. 878 372 and 1001673.
...
2011-10-21 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel finds the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark and so decides that the Complainant has satisfied this first element of the Policy.”
...D2000-0664
(finding to be confusingly similar to the PRICE CLUB
mark).
Therefore, in accordance with previous panel decisions, the Panel concludes that the Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CIALIS mark in which the Complainant has rights.”
...
2006-03-17 - Case Details
Walmarket Canada, WIPO
Case No D2000-0150, (domain name ). UDRP panels
considering similar cases where registrants simply added a country name to a
registered trademark have found such domain names to be confusingly similar.
...D2000-0553, where domain names incorporating the AT&T trademark
plus a country or place name were found to be confusingly similar to the AT&T
trademarks; America Online, Inc. v. Dolphin@Heart, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0713, where domain names were confusingly similar
because the “addition of a place name generally does not alter the underlying
mark to which it is added.” ...
2005-06-02 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant does have registered trademark rights in the mark VIRGIN by virtue of its many Trademark Registrations; Including the following:
U.S. ...The Panel finds that the registration and use of a confusingly similar trademark in this manner is not evidence of a bona fide offering of goods and services.
...
2012-12-21 - Case Details
In regards to the disputed domain name , the Panel finds the disputed domain name is
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark LACTALIS and the addition of the term “app” is not
sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark
LACTALIS. ...Under these circumstances, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to
the Complainant’s mark and the first element of the policy is therefore demonstrated.
...
2023-11-02 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant does have registered trademark rights in the mark WALTER KIDDE AEROSPACE by virtue of its United States Trademark Registration No. 2,108,140, which was registered in 1997.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark WALTER KIDDE AEROSPACE, as the domain name replicates two principal elements of the registered mark. ...
2018-06-01 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
At the time the Complainant was filed, the Complainant owned a Canadian trademark application for the mark WAGJAG (Serial No. 1,502,323), and common law rights in the WAGJAG trademark since December 20, 2009. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant does have trademark rights in the mark WAGJAG by virtue of Canadian trademark application (Serial No. 1,502,323) and the common law rights dating back to December 20, 2009. ...
2011-09-19 - 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 trademark DEFEVER, which is the subject of U.S. trademark registration No. 1,736,394.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights in the trademark DEFEVER by virtue of its U.S. trademark registration No. 1,736,394.
...
2009-06-30 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
i. Domain Name Identical or Confusingly Similar to Complainant’s Mark
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. ...D2001-0110 (finding confusingly similar
to the trademark ANSELL for condoms).
Accordingly, the Administrative Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
...
2007-04-11 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant does have trademark rights in the mark CAISSE D’EPARGNE by virtue of Community Trademark Registration No. 637, 504 and French Registration No. 1,658,134.
...The Panel finds that the Respondent was most likely aware of the Complainant’s trademark rights when it registered a confusingly similar domain name, and when it began operating a website in connection with that confusingly similar domain name which provides links to other websites operated by direct competitors of the Complainant. ...
2011-06-03 - Case Details
Other panels follow the objective test, which holds
that a domain name which includes the mark or a confusingly similar approximation
thereof is confusingly similar, regardless of the other terms in the domain
name. ...It is the Panel’s view that the better view is the application of the objective test and if a domain name includes the registered mark within the domain name, then the domain name at issue is confusingly similar to the registered mark. In the present case, a confusingly similar approximation of the mark FLIRT4FREE is contained in the domain name at issue, and the Panel finds that the domain name at issue is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
...
2004-06-14 - Case Details
As noted by the Complainant, previous panels have
consistently held that selling competing goods, coupled with the unauthorized use of a complainant’s
trademarks in a confusingly similar domain name, does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or
services under paragraph 6(c)(iii) of the Policy. ...The Respondent, by registering a domain name that incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety
combined with the term “gas”, which relates to the Complainant’s industry, has intentionally created a
domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, as well as to its own
and domain names. ...
2023-08-30 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant's contentions can be summarized as follows:
1) Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant alleges that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark TETRA PAK since consumers will mistake the Disputed Domain Name with the said trademark. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark TETRA PAK. ...
2018-09-04 - Case Details
Policy, paragraph 4(a).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based upon the trademark registrations cited by Complainant, it is apparent that Complainant has rights in and to the ULTIUS Trademark.
...D2015-0899 (finding confusingly similar to ACCENTURE); and Research In Motion Limited v. Nigel Hull,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1126 (finding confusingly similar to BLACKBERRY).
...
2018-07-03 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant alleges that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its COSTCO trademark.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complaint’s trademark COSTCO. ...
2019-02-04 - Case Details
D2003-0141 ( “the domain name differs from [SIMCITY] trademark in only one letter; this small difference establishes the confusingly similarity with [the complainant’s trademark]”). The addition of the TLD “.com” is irrelevant in determining whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar. ...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Complainant contends that because Respondent has created a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CRESCENT COMMUNITIES Mark, as well as its domain name, as found in section 6.A. above, it is implausible to believe that Respondent did not have actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark when it registered its confusingly similar disputed domain name. ...
2021-08-04 - Case Details
It is generally regarded as prima facie evidence of no rights or legitimate interests if a complainant shows that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark, that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and that a complainant has not authorized the respondent to use its mark (or an expression which is confusingly similar to its mark), whether in the disputed domain name or otherwise. ...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Complainant contends that because Respondent has created a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ADM Mark (and the domain name used to access the ADM Mark Official Website), it is implausible to believe that Respondent was not aware of Complainant’s ADM Mark when it registered its confusingly similar domain name. ...
2022-01-31 - Case Details
Therefore, the Domain Name could be considered virtually identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. ...D2001-0110, stating “The incorporation of a Complainant’s well-known trademark in the registered Domain Name is considered sufficient to find the Domain Name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark”.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first requirement that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademarks, under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2022-01-27 - Case Details