A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The test of confusing similarity under the Policy is on the basis of a comparison between the disputed domain name and the trade mark, independently of the products for which the domain name is used, or other factors, such as marketing and use, which are usually relevant to 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 established the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2009-11-30 - Case Details
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant is obliged to prove that each of the three following elements are satisfied:
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and been used in bad faith.
...The Trading Force Limited,
WIPO Case No. D2002-1038.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks.
...
2010-09-28 - Case Details
The Panel will now review each of the three cumulative elements set forth in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy to determine whether Complainant has complied with such requirements.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The conduct by Respondent is argued by Complainant to be a kind of “typosquatting” or “spoofing” where previous UDRP decisions found that there was confusing similarity.
...The Panel takes into account previous 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 well-established point. ACCOR v. Brigit Klostermann,
WIPO Case No. ...
2007-09-18 - Case Details
In particular, the Complainants claim that the disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to their trademark CIC and identical to their trademark and registered domain name CIC SECURITIES.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name registered is . The Complainants have rights in trademarks for the denominations CIC and CIC SECURITIES. ...
2007-11-19 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the AIR FRANCE trademark because (i) the AIR FRANCE trademark is entirely reproduced in the domain name, (ii) the suffix “travel” refers to the main business of Complainant and suggests that the disputed domain name refers to Complainant, and (iii) Complainant owns a very similar domain name ().
...The Panel will now review each of the three cumulative elements set forth in Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy to determine whether Complainant has complied with such requirements.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The trademark AIR FRANCE is a widely known trademark. When a respondent merely adds generic or descriptive terms to an otherwise distinctive and famous trademark, the domain name is to be considered confusingly similar to the registered trademark. ...
2007-05-15 - Case Details
Considering these conditions, the Panel rules as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has based its Complaint on a Benelux trademark as well as a CTM and has submitted copies of the registrations demonstrating that Complainant is the holder of the Trademark. ...It is settled case law under the Regulations that a domain name that wholly incorporates a complainant’s registered mark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for the purpose of the Regulations.1
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Trademark within the meaning of article 2.1(a) of the Regulations. Therefore the first requirement is met.
...
2015-04-08 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant had registered rights in the trademark SWISS RE as at the Relevant Date by way of its United States and international registered trademarks specified above. ...The Panel accordingly finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights and finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied in favour of the Complainant.
...
2014-12-16 - Case Details
The Panel will now review each of the three cumulative elements set forth in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy to determine whether Complainant has complied with such requirements.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name incorporates the IKEA trademark in its entirety. ...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the IKEA trademark and, as a result, finds that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is met.
...
2015-06-12 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has shown that it is the owner of trademark registrations for the INTESA SANPAOLO trademark in various jurisdictions, including China. ...Having taken into account the above, the Panel concludes that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the INTESA SANPAOLO trademark and holds that the first limb of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is established.
...
2015-06-26 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainant owns rights; the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name; and the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has rights in the trademark MEAD JOHNSON by virtue of the registered trademarks which it has cited. ...
2010-10-15 - Case Details
Complainants object to the use of the Domain Name at issue by Respondent on the following grounds.
The disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which Complainants have rights. The only distinction between the trademark CASINO.COM and the Domain Name is the addition of the two letters “i” in the middle and “s” at the end of the word “casino”. ...On the other hand, if Complainants fail to prove only one of the three elements above, they must fail on their Complaint under the Policy.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainants evidenced their rights in the registered Community Trademark CASINO.COM (see above, section 4). ...
2010-07-13 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name contains a sign which is identical and/or confusingly similar to the BARCLAYS and BARCLAYS CAPITAL trademarks in which it has common law rights and for which it has obtained Trademark Registrations in many countries as stated above.
...Each of these elements will be reviewed separately in the following sections.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The distinctive and attractive part of the disputed Domain name i.e. ...
2012-07-27 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This first element requires that the Complainant demonstrate that (1) it has trademark rights and (2) the disputed domain name is identical or similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
1. ...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainants trademarks.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The second element requires the Complainant to prove that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question.
...
2011-02-11 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order for the domain name to be transferred to it:
- The Domain Names registered by the Respondent are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
- The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names; and
- The Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
As the Respondent did not submit a formal Response or reply to the Panel Order requesting substantiation of the claims made in its communication to the Center, the Panel will decide this matter on the basis of the substantiated Record.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The evidence shows that the Complainant has rights in the Trademarks. The Complainant has undisputedly stated that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Trademarks.
...
2011-12-22 - Case Details
Namely, the Complainant must prove that:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (paragraph 4(a)(i)); and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (paragraph 4(a)(ii)); and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (paragraph 4(a)(iii)).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element under the paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to establish the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which it has rights.
...
2012-03-21 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
The Complainant has established that it has rights in the TOMMY BAHAMA Mark and has stated that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to it.
In order to substantiate this claim, the Complainant has argued that, “the addition of the term ‘outlet’ to the TOMMY BAHAMA mark does not lessen the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s marks”.
...D2010-0988, where the panel wrote that:
“It is long established by past panel decisions that a domain name incorporating a trademark in its entirety with the addition of generic and non-distinctive prefixes and/or suffixes is confusingly similar to the trademark (e.g., Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. bmwcar.com,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0615; Birkenstock Orthopädie GmbH & Co. ...
2012-03-19 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainants are the owners of the AUDI, and VOLKSWAGEN trademarks. Complainants’ trademarks are very well-known.
The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trademarks. The addition of the term “eco” before the trademarks AUDI and VOLKSWAGEN in the disputed domain names is merely generic and does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity of the disputed domain names with Complainants’ trademarks.
...
2012-02-22 - Case Details
The Panel will now review each of the three cumulative elements set forth in Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concurs with the opinion of several prior UDRP panels which have held that, when a domain name wholly incorporates a complainant’s registered trademark that may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy. ...In addition, it has been consistently decided that the addition of generic or descriptive terms to an otherwise distinctive trademark is to be considered confusingly similar to the registered trademark. V&S Vin&Sprit AhB v. Giovanni Pastore,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0926; Thomson Broadcast and Media Solution Inc., Thomson v. ...
2012-02-22 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is, according to the submitted evidence, the exclusive licensee of the registered trademark DOLCE & GABBANA. ...Having the above in mind, it is the opinion of the Panel that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and that the Complainant has proved the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2011-12-07 - Case Details
Regarding the pages featured on the disputed domain name at the time these proceedings were initiated, Complainant maintains that the content was confusingly similar to Complainant’s official homepage and incorporated a link to a different website composed of one of Complainant’s competitor’s trademarks. ...In these communications, Respondent requested confirmation regarding additional actions needed to resolve the matter.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MICHELIN trademark in that Respondent adds only “ua” as a suffix. ...
2011-05-27 - Case Details