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 TURBOTAX Trademark.
...As set forth in section 1.7 of WIPO Overview 3.0, “in cases where… at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing.” Further, section 1.9 of WIPO Overview 3.0 states: “A domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element.” ...
2020-08-26 - Case Details
D2001-0004 (holding confusingly similar to the ICQ mark despite the addition of “roaming”); MasterCard International Incorporated v. ...D2003-0496 (holding confusingly similar to the mark AGNONA LANERIE).
For the foregoing reasons, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's MASTERCARD mark and GOLD MASTERCARD mark.
...
2009-02-25 - Case Details
The addition of the generic term “listings” to Complainants’ EROS mark does not alter the fact that the Domain Name is confusingly similar. In fact, in multiple prior UDRP decisions, the panel has found that the addition of a generic or descriptive word to the EROS and/or EROS GUIDE marks does not alter the fact that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar. ...D2007-1423 (November 26, 2007) ( confusingly similar to EROS).
Because the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark of Complainants, the Panel considers that Complainants have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2011-11-04 - Case Details
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. ...The Complainants argue that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its marks for the following reasons:
“Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to the SHAW® Registrations and the SHAW® Marks. ...
2007-05-03 - Case Details
Nor does the typographical change made by Respondent to the INSTAGRAM Mark because common misspellings and typographical variations have consistently been found by prior panels to satisfy the confusingly similar prong of Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). See AltaVista v. O.F.E.Z. et al., Case No. D2000-1160 (misspelling or typographical variation of well-known mark deemed “confusingly similar” to complainant’s mark); see also Instagram, LLC v. ...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Complainant contends that because Respondent has created a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s INSTAGRAM Mark, as found in section 6A above, it is implausible to believe that Respondent did not have actual knowledge of Complainant’s famous INSTAGRAM mark when it registered its confusingly similar domain name. ...
2022-02-11 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the FLIRT4FREE trademark. The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is
confusingly similar to this trademark. ...case=D2012-1909
page 3
the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name”
(Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2023-07-26 - 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 SENVION Mark, as well as its domain name, 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. ...
2021-04-28 - 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.
...Thus, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s GOOGLE Mark.
Accordingly, the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant.
...
2020-12-17 - Case Details
More particularly, with respect to the first argument, the combination of the two marks in the disputed domain name was said to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks. Referring to various cases where a company’s entire trademark has been combined with a non-distinctive and descriptive matter such as gTLDs, and the resulting name has been found to be confusingly similar, the Complaint contended that the full incorporation of its two marks makes the resulting domain name confusingly similar to its “family” of mark and domain names.
...In the present case, the Panel is of the view that the record contains conclusive evidence of each of the three requisite elements.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. ...
2007-08-16 - 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 that the disputed domain name is identical to or confusingly similar to the trade mark in which Complainant has rights.
...The inclusion of the top level domain descriptor “. com” in the disputed domain name does not affect a finding of confusingly similar. UDRP panels have repeatedly held that the specific top level of the domain name such as “.org,” “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar (see Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...
2010-08-10 - Case Details
In this context they are interchangeable and therefore confusingly similar.
Finally, the Complainant should like to comment on the argument presented by the Respondent that the trade marks "BØRSEN – DET SIKRE PAPIR" (submitted as annex C4) and "BØRSEN – ET SIKKERT PAPIR" (submitted as annex C5) are not similar or confusingly similar.
...The domain names must, however, be considered as confusingly similar to the trademark.
Accordingly, the Panelist finds that the domain names at issue are confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2001-04-25 - 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. ...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.
B. ...
2022-02-07 - Case Details
In light of this, the Disputed Domain Name must be considered as confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ALIGHT FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS trademark, as well as its domain name.
The Disputed Domain Name must be considered confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ALIGHT FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS trademark in that it is similar to such trademark in both sight and sound. ...
2022-03-17 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel must first determine whether the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. ...Complainant contacted Respondent on November 6, 2015 in connection with Respondent’s previous registration of another similar domain name, . That domain name was linked to the same confusingly similar website to which the Domain Name was subsequently linked. ...
2016-02-05 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain names incorporate the whole of the Complainant’s registered mark and are therefore confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark MFS. The Complainant relies on UDRP Decisions which recognize that a domain name is confusingly similar for the purposes of the first factor of the Policy if it incorporates the complainant’s mark in its entirety because the mark and domain name, when directly compared, are confusingly similar (see Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v Richard MacLeod d/b/a/ For Sale,
WIPO Case No. ...The Panel is prepared to find that the Respondent was or must have been aware of the Complainant’s rights to the trademark and trade name MFS when it registered confusingly similar disputed domain names, and when it began operating a website in connection with the confusingly similar disputed domain names which provides identical or similar services to that of the Complainant. ...
2011-04-19 - Case Details
Complainant
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant makes the following assertions.
Firstly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its NUTROF registered trademarks and domain names as it identically reproduces the name “Nutrof’.
...
2022-01-12 - Case Details
D2001-0193 (finding confusingly similar to MICROSOFT, which offered health-related information).
Indeed, prior UDRP panels have found similar domain names confusingly similar to the AAA mark. ...Texas International Property Associates,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0592 (finding confusingly similar to AAA); American Automobile Association, Inc. v. Nevis Domains LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0489 (finding confusingly similar to AAA).
...
2010-04-14 - Case Details
Therefore, the Panel determines that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s service mark. See, Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Syed Hussain,
WIPO Case No. D2012-2395 (where was found to be confusingly similar to the VIRGIN MONEY trademark); Apple Inc. v. Contact Privacy Inc. / Grand Slam Co.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2018-02-05 - Case Details
Furthermore, where the mark is essentially the same as the domain name, the marks are considered confusingly similar. Here, the Complainant states that its QUICK HIT marks are nearly identical to the Domain Name, and thus, they are confusingly similar.
...D2000-0006 (holding that a domain was “undoubtedly” confusingly similar because it incorporated the “primary, distinctive element of both of Complainant’s trademarks”). ...
2015-08-26 - Case Details
Jonathan Investments, Inc. and AOLLNEWS.COM,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0918:
“What is meant by ‘confusingly similar’? In the view of the Panel, if the word ‘confusingly’ is to be given any meaning, the expression cannot equate to ‘similar’. ...Thus, the Panel concludes that a domain name is ‘identical or confusingly similar’ to a trademark for purposes of the Policy when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name. ...
2011-12-29 - Case Details