page 4
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
First, this Panel finds that the Complainant has established trademark rights in the THERMOMIX trademark.
...- The mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a widely-known
trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. ...
2023-01-12 - Case Details
In particular, the Complainant asserts that:
(1) the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its ARCELORMITTAL trademark in which the
Complainant has rights. The addition of the letter “x” and the deletion of the letter “r” is not sufficient to
escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark ARCELORMITTAL...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-09-28 - Case Details
Consequently, the Panel grants the Complainant’s request for consolidation and refers to the Respondent in singular form.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark for which the Complainant has rights.
...This conduct, commonly referred to as “typosquatting”, creates a virtually identical and/or confusingly similar mark to the Complainant’s trademark under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
The disputed domain name is a combination of the Complainant MARLOBORO trademarks and the generic terms “win instantly at”, thereby making the Disputed Domain Name confusingly similar to the Complainant trademarks under Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2018-08-08 - Case Details
The Panel has no difficulty finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark CAFFITALY and is also confusingly similar to Complainant’s domain name . ...Using the confusingly similar domain name misleads Internet users as to the origin of the website and therefore Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods.
...
2019-02-12 - Case Details
WACHEM d.o.o.,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0110.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Policy requires the Complainant to demonstrate that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...The Panel follows the two stage test to be applied under this first element of the UDRP, 1) does the Complainant have rights in the trademark; and 2) is the domain name identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark. Therefore once ownership is established the Complainant should establish that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. ...
2009-04-29 - Case Details
WACHEM d.o.o.,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0110.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Policy requires the Complainant to demonstrate that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...The Panel follows the two stage test to be applied under this first element of the UDRP, 1) does the Complainant have rights in the trademark; and 2) is the domain name identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark. Therefore once ownership is established the Complainant should establish that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. ...
2009-04-29 - Case Details
Ian Herman, WIPO
Case No. D2004-0597 (finding confusingly similar
to VIAGRA); Pfizer Inc. v. The Magic Islands, WIPO
Case No. D2003-0870 (finding confusingly
similar to VIAGRA).
...Respondent’s contention that the domain name is not confusingly similar because he is selling jewelry, not “an ingestible substance” misses the critical point. ...
2006-12-20 - Case Details
Complainant alleges the dominant portion of the domain name is “aggrenox” and that the domain name is confusingly similar to the AGGRENOX trademark. Complainant alleges the dominant portion of the domain name is “micardis” and that the domain name is confusingly similar to the MICARDIS trademark. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
; ; and
Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations for AGGRENOX,
MICARDIS and MOBICOX. ...
2006-06-20 - Case Details
As the Respondent did not file a Response or otherwise reply to the Complainant's contentions, the Panel shall decide the complaint on the basis of the Complainant's submissions and such inferences that can be reasonably drawn from the failure to submit a Response as the Panel considers applicable (Rules, paragraph 14(b)).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complaint submits that the disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the names and trade marks in which the Complainant has extensive rights. ...Whether a domain name which incorporates a complainant's trade mark together with a prefix or suffix is confusingly similar to the trade mark has been considered in a number of UDRP decisions. It has been held that a domain name consisting of the complainant's trade mark and ending with the “.com” gTLD is confusingly similar to the complainant's trade mark (see Sanofi-Aventis v. ...
2009-12-08 - Case Details
MTO C.A. and Diabetes Education Long Life,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0363 (finding confusingly similar to DELL); Telstra Corporation Limited v. Ozurls,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0046 (finding confusingly similar to TELSTRA). ...As the Disputed Domain Name uses PUBLIC STORAGE, it is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PS Mark.
For all of the foregoing reasons, this Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name, , is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s PS Mark in which the Complainant has established rights. ...
2011-05-09 - 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
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has a well-established trademark rights for INTESA, and that trademark is similar to, but not identical to, the domain name in contention. Whether the domain name is confusingly similar is harder to conclude.
“Credintesa” is comprised of INTESA with four letters appended to the front. ...
2013-10-25 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainants submit that all of the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainants’ registered trademarks BAKECA and BAKECA INCONTRI.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainants own registered trademark rights in the BAKECA and BAKECA INCONTRI trademarks by virtue of the trademark registrations listed in paragraph 4 above.
...
2015-08-12 - Case Details
Nevertheless, the Panel may rule in the Complainant's favor only after the Complainant has proven that the above elements are present.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant is required to establish that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. ...The addition of the hyphen and the descriptive word 'free' does not prevent the Domain Name from being considered confusingly similar to the Complainant's Mark. The Panel therefore finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's Mark and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
...
2017-10-13 - Case Details
D2000-0441, (July 13, 2000) where the administrative panel held
that the domain names , , ,
and were confusingly similar to the
complainant’s trademark REUTERS.
The Complainant submits that in the present Administrative Proceeding there
can be no doubt but that the contested domain name is
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s famous name and mark EDMUND’S.
...Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has satisfied this Administrative Panel that it is the
owner of a registered trademark EDMUND’S, details of which are set out above.
...
2002-06-10 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the MAGNA E-CAR trademark. The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name
is confusingly similar to this trademark (with the only difference being the lack of a hyphen within the
Disputed Domain Name, noting that spaces cannot be reproduced in a domain name). ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the MAGNA E-CAR trademark. The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to this trademark (with the only difference being the lack of a hyphen within the Disputed Domain Name, noting that spaces cannot...
...
2023-06-02 - Case Details
D2007-0008, “The incorporation of a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's registered mark.”(citing Trip.com, Inc. v. Daniel Deamone,
WIPO Case No. ...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 domain name in dispute is identical to or confusingly similar to the trademark in which Complainant has rights.
...
2008-12-15 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In light of the evidence submitted by the Complainant (Annex D) that it owns valid USPTO registrations for the GEICO service mark, the Panel concludes that the Complainant possesses sufficient rights in that mark to satisfy Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). ...D2010-2164 (finding the disputed domain name, to be confusingly similar to the ALLSTATE mark.); Accor v. Maixueying Jokemine,
WIPO Case No. D2010-2233 (finding confusingly similar to the ACCOR mark and opining, “Considering that the Complainant operates in the hotel business, the Panel concludes that the addition of the term ‘hotel’ even heightens the similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark.”); and Isleworth Land Company v. ...
2012-03-07 - Case Details
The Domain Name is confusingly similar because it incorporates the ROCKEFELLER and ROCKEFELLER FINANCIAL marks in their entirety, replacing only the first “E” in ROCKEFELLER with the letter “Y”. ...Panelists have consistently held that the mere addition of descriptive wording to well-known marks, or confusingly similar derivatives thereof, does not avert a finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar. ...
2012-01-04 - Case Details