A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The FITLINE Mark is owned by the Complainant and precedes the registration of the disputed domain name by several years. ...In the circumstances, this Panel is of the view that the disputed domain name is not distinguishable from but is confusingly similar to the FITLINE Mark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has submitted that the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of goods or services and has never been commonly known by the disputed domain name. ...
2008-12-22 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks because it incorporates the PNY and PNY TECHNOLOGIES trademarks and Respondent’s misspelling of the term “technologies” is a typical case of “typosquatting”. ...The Panel takes into account previous WIPO UDRP decisions relating to the practice of “typosquatting” where such practice has consistently been regarded as creating domain names confusingly similar to the relevant mark. This is a point well-established in prior UDRP domain name cases. ...
2008-05-29 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights. The disputed domain name (i) wholly incorporates the DYNAPAR trademark; (ii) is identical to the DYNAPAR trademark; and (iii) is so clearly similar to the Complainant’s trademark that it is likely to cause confusion among consumers and the Complainant’s clients. ...This dispute is properly within the scope of the Policy and the Administrative Panel has jurisdiction to decide the dispute.
A. Whether the Domain Name is Identical or Confusingly Similar to a Trademark
The Complainant provides documentary evidence that it has used the word “dynapar” extensively as its trademark from 1984 until the present. ...
2007-01-19 - Case Details
Complainant
According to the Complainant, the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade marks because it reproduces them entirely with the mere adjunction of the terms “Centre” and “Hotel”. ...Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the allegations referenced in the headings of paragraphs A., B., and C. below.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade marks NOVOTEL. ...
2006-06-02 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements that Complainant must prove to merit a finding that the domain names registered by Respondent be transferred to Complainant:
1) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark (“mark”) in which the Complainant has rights; and
2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s
trademark WINDSMOOR, the only difference being the gTLD .com. ...
2006-05-03 - Case Details
The website accessed by the contested domain name appears in many respects (including colour schemes, content, graphics, layout and animations) to be very similar to the official US website for ACURA “www.acura.com”.
5. Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant asserts that:
- the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to ACURA trademark in which the Complainant has rights...It is well established that the specific top level of the domain name such as “com” or “.ro” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark (see Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. & Wilson, Sr.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2008-11-13 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The test of confusing similarity under the Policy is confined to a comparison of the disputed domain name and the trade mark alone, independent of the products for which the domain name is used or other marketing and use factors, usually considered in trade mark infringement: Arthur Guinness Son & Co. ...The Panel thus finds that the domain names and are confusingly similar to the trade marks in which the Complainant has rights, and considers that the Complainant has proved the elements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2009-11-23 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The evidence produced by the Complainant regarding the registration and use of its trade-marks KFORCE.COM, KFORCE, KFORCE KNOWLEDGE STAFFING MODEL and KFORCE PROFESSIONAL STAFFING, satisfies the requirement that the Complainant has rights in these marks.
...Lost in Space, SA FA, 117330 NAF)
The Panel concludes that the Complainant has satisfied the first criterion for a successful challenge to the disputed domain names, namely, that the domain names are confusingly similar to trade-marks or service marks in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has chosen not to respond to the Complaint or to defend its choice of the disputed domain names. ...
2007-11-08 - Case Details
The Respondent has not been authorized to use the Complainant’s COCA-COLA mark (or any expression confusingly similar thereto).
Pre-Commencement Correspondence between the Parties
The Complainant’s counsel sent a “cease and desist” letter to the Respondent on December 4, 2009. ...Under paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences from a respondent’s failure to comply with the Rules (e.g. by failing to file a response), as the Panel considers appropriate.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has proved this part of the Complaint. The Domain Name is almost identical to the Complainant’s COCA-COLA mark. ...
2010-12-16 - Case Details
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or
service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant represents that it has not found anything that would suggest that the Respondents have been using LEGO in any way that would give them any legitimate interests or rights in the name. ...There the panel stated that "given the notoriety of the Complainant's Deutsche Bank Mark, any use which the Respondents would make of any domain name, as here, that incorporated the Complainant's Deutsche Bank Mark, or one confusingly similar thereto, would likely violate the exclusive trademark rights which the Complainant has long held in its mark".
...
2012-01-16 - Case Details
The fact that a trademark is incorporated in its entirety in a domain name is a solid indication, but does not ipso facto mean, that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark. The similarity of the trademark and the domain name depends on many factors, including “the relative distinctiveness of the trademark and the non-trademark elements of the domain name, and whether the non-trademark elements detract from or contradict the function of the trademark as an indication of origin” (see Pfizer Inc v. ...However, this is another case of the addition of a prefix and suffix to a registered trademark descriptive of the products available on the Respondent’s website which, as many UDRP decisions demonstrate, will almost invariably be insufficient to prevent the domain names being confusingly similar to the registered trademark. The Panel considers that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the GEROVITAL trademark for the following reasons: (i) GEROVITAL is an invented word with a high degree of inherent distinctiveness; (ii) ‘cosmetics’ and ‘cosmetiques’ are ordinary descriptive words that describe in English and French respectively the products offered by the Complainant; (iii) the evidence demonstrates that the GEROVITAL trademark has an established reputation in respect of medicines and cosmetics; (iv) potential customers will assume that the disputed domain names are associated with the Complainants’ trademark.”
...
2011-12-20 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its registered MICHELIN mark and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
...Under paragraph 15(a) of the Rules:
“A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant indisputably holds multiple trademark registrations for the MICHELIN mark. ...
2011-06-07 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided evidence of its United States and Madrid trademark registrations for its P90X, INSANITY and TURBOFIRE marks. ...The Panel thus finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered trademarks and that the Complainant has established the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2012-09-05 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that Complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) that the disputed domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s GRAND THEFT AUTO trademark.
...
2013-10-23 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Trade Marks, the
Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, and the
disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
...https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 5
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Marks acquired through use and registration.
...
2022-08-03 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Trade Mark, the
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, and the disputed
domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
...https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 5
6.3 Substantive Elements of the Policy
The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use and registration.
...
2022-06-08 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant makes the following contentions:
(i) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s NOPPIES Mark;
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights nor any legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...page 3
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element the Complainant must have trade or service mark rights and the Domain Name must
be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade or service mark.
...
2022-11-02 - Case Details
It says that the
disputed domain name wholly incorporates its VISTAPRINT mark and is the dominant feature and is
therefore confusingly similar to it. It submits that the inclusion in the disputed domain name of the additional
term “hub” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the Policy.
...The disputed domain
name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s VISTAPRINT mark and is therefore confusingly similar to it.
The Panel finds that the inclusion in the disputed domain name of the term “hub” does not prevent a finding
of confusing similarity under the Policy.
...
2022-03-31 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.4 The Complainant has satisfied the Panel that it has registered U.S, trade marks that comprise or
incorporate the word “Hedonism”. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-03-21 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainants have proved rights over the META and QUEST trademarks.
...It is well
accepted by UDRP panels that a generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) is typically ignored when assessing
whether a domain name is identical or confusing similar to a trademark. See section 1.11 of the WIPO
Overview 3.0.
This Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainants’
trademarks and therefore finds that the Complainants have satisfied the standing requirement under
paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2023-03-15 - Case Details