Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant’s trademarks and domain name are built on its company name Neuberger Berman Inc. ...Here, we have to determine whether Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar or identical to Complainant’s
This Panel finds that the slight difference in spelling between "Newberger" and "Neuberger" and their phonetic identity make Respondent’s domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks based on its company name Neuberger Berman Inc., and thus confusingly similar to Complainant’s domain name . ...
2000-06-15 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
Only the Complainants made a submission, which is summarized below.
A. Complainants
(i) Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainants allege that the domain name at issue is confusingly similar to Complainants’ marks because the domain name is a very slight misspelling, constituting a predictable typographical misspelling and/or phonetic misspelling, of the mark CHRYSLER FINANCIAL.
...D2004-0707, where the Panel found
confusingly similar to the identical trademark for a popular video game.
In addition to the domain names at issue in these proceedings, Respondent has registered the domain name , which is confusingly similar to other of Complainants’ domain names, namely, and .
...
2005-05-13 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s RADA mark because each Domain Name incorporates that mark in its entirety and because the addition of the descriptive and/or generic words “knives,” “cutlery sales,” and “sell…cutlery” in the Domain Names does not sufficiently distinguish them from Complainant’s RADA mark. ...The Panel also finds the Domain Names confusingly similar to Complainant’s
RADA mark because the descriptive words “knives,” “cutlery
sales,” and “sell…cutlery” relate to Complainant’s
business. ...
2005-03-22 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent denies the contentions made by the Complainant, as follows.
Identical or confusingly similar
The Respondent denies that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. ...The question then is whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to that mark. For this purpose, it is well-established that the “.com” extension is to be disregarded.
...
2006-12-21 - Case Details
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-06-25 - Case Details
Complainants
The Complainants state that the disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the M88 Marks, in which the Complainants have rights. The disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the M88 Marks and the addition of the generic terms "-id" and "s" to the First Complainant's marks does not offer any distinctive character to the disputed Domain Names. ...The Panel finds that the disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainants' M88 Marks. The disputed Domain Names consist of the term "m88" with the addition of "-id" or "s". ...
2017-11-13 - Case Details
Moreover, registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a Complainant’s mark but which is otherwise meaningless is further evidence of bad faith registration and use.
...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. ...
2010-09-20 - Case Details
Advanced Chemill Systems,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0827.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is required under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy to prove that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...The Panel also accepts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s LEGO mark as well as the domain name registered by the Complainant.
...
2011-10-31 - Case Details
D2011-0843 (finding clear case of typo-squatting: confusingly similar to EXTENDED STAY AMERICA mark); Apple Inc. v. Private Whois Service,
WIPO Case No. D2011-0929 ( confusing similar to IPOD).
...D2001-0184( and were found confusingly similar to HARRY POTTER and SCOOBY DOO respectively).
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the above-cited trademarks CLARINS.
...
2014-01-29 - Case Details
D2017-0156, the Complainant submits that “domain names are 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’”.
...The Parties
A. Complainant
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith...
2023-08-09 - Case Details
Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. See OLX Inc. v. Domain Bridge Technologies, Ali Akbar Khan / PrivacyProtect.org,
WIPO Case No. D2010-2197 (finding to be confusingly similar to OLX).
Accordingly, the Panel determines that the Complainant has satisfied its burden of proof under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2016-01-11 - Case Details
Panels and Courts have consistently recognised that domain names which differ from trademarks only by generic extensions are confusingly similar to those trademarks – For example, Komatsu Ltd. and Komatsu America International Company v. ...D2007-0392 it was held that the domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant's ALEDA trade mark. Citing Pfizer Inc v. United Pharmacy Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2009-07-08 - Case Details
Domain names that constitute typosquatting are "confusingly similar" by definition because the sole attraction of the domain names is their confusing similarity to famous marks.
For example, the following domain names (among many others), which differ from famous marks by only one letter, have been found to be "confusingly similar":
- (confusingly similar to the mark microsoft and the domain name )
- (confusingly similar to the mark google and domain name, )
- (confusingly similar to the marks Expedia and Expedia.com and the domain name )
Here, each of the Contested Domain Names differs from Complainant's mark and domain name by one letter, and each differing letter is immediately adjacent on the keyboard to the corresponding letter in Complainant's marks and domain name. ...
2002-08-15 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the domain names are confusingly similar to the CIALIS mark because the disputed domain name incorporates entirely Complainant’s distinctive mark. ...Indeed,
there are numerous examples of decisions holding a domain name to be confusingly
similar to a registered trademark when it consists of the mark plus one or more
generic terms. ...
2004-12-21 - Case Details
Citing prior cases, the Complainant argues that it is well-accepted that a domain name that merely adds a letter or makes similar small changes to a registered trademark is confusingly similar to the mark.
Secondly, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names. ...D2000-0624 (August 21, 2000), and they will be examined in turn
below.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
A preliminary issue to be addressed here is whether the Complainant has protected
rights in the marks MACMALL and PCMALL. ...
2005-05-12 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant makes the following submissions.
A.1. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ZIONS BANK, ZIONSBANK.COM and ZIONS marks.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2014-04-23 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has registered trade mark rights in respect of the AMEGY BANK and AMEGYBANK (Stylised), based on its trade mark registrations in the United States of America.
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade marks in which he has rights, and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2013-07-04 - Case Details
page 3
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel determines that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark,
contrary to the requirements specified in Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i); Rules, paragraphs 3(b)(viii), (b)(ix)(1).
...Respondent
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel determines that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, contrary to the requirements specified in Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i); Rules, paragraphs 3(b)(viii), (b)(ix)(1).
...
2022-07-28 - Case Details
The Panel must decide whether the Complainant has
introduced elements of proof, which allow the Panel to conclude that its allegations
are true.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Respondent has registered a total of 13 Domain Names, which the Complainants contend are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trademarks MICHELIN and GOODRICH.
1. ...Thus, the Domain name
is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
Finally, regarding the Domain Name , the essential element is the name “BFGOODRICH”. ...
2005-03-02 - Case Details
In reviewing the Response as a whole, the Panel is satisfied that that Respondent was aware that Complainant was alleging that the disputed domain name was confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered trademarks LEGO and LEGOLAND.
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.
...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 domain names confusingly similar to the complainant’s PEPSI mark); and Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. v. ...
2011-09-22 - Case Details