Complainant
The Complainant contends as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant has prior rights in the CLOUDFM mark by way of registered and unregistered rights. ...Complainant’s reply to Procedural Order
In summary, the Complainant contends as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The Respondent has not disputed the fact that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. ...
2021-12-29 - Case Details
Therefore, the Panelist will review the Complaint on this basis.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
With Complainant, the Panelist is of the opinion that this is a clear case of typosquatting, adding only one letter to the Trademark and trade name of Complainant. ...Therefore, the Panelist deems the Domain Name to be confusingly similar to the Trademark and trade name.
The Panelist therefore rules that Complainant has met the first ground of the Regulations as set out in article 2.1(a) under I.
...
2012-02-03 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to be entitled to a transfer of a domain name, a complainant shall prove the following three elements:
(i) The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
(ii) The respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) 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 the Complainant’s registered trademarks.
Therefore paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2015-03-11 - Case Details
The allocation or use of the domain name constitutes a clear infringement of the Claimant’s right
According to Art. 13 para 1 and para. 2(c) STA, a trademark right confers on the proprietor the exclusive right to use the trademark to identify the goods or services for which it is claimed, and to prohibit others from offering or providing services under a sign that is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark.
According to Swiss supreme court rulings, the use of domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark on websites offering the same or similar goods constitutes trademark infringement (see e.g. decisions of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court 4C.31/2004, and 4C.341/2005 ).
...
2020-05-27 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
Complainant contends that the domain name in issue is identical or confusingly similar to its AMERICAN GOLF and "golf ball and flag" marks; that there is no evidence that Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and that Respondent registered and used the domain name in "bad faith." ...There is no question that the domain name in dispute is identical or confusingly similar to marks in which Complainant has rights. The domain name incorporates, in full, the AMERICAN GOLF mark, which Complainant has used since 1983. ...
2000-10-26 - Case Details
The Respondent contends that the Complainant’s assertion of
bad faith relies on an assumption of exclusivity over the “hill climb” concept, which is not supported by
trademark law or industry norms, adding that it has not engaged in any conduct outlined in paragraph 4(b) of
the Policy.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has shown rights in respect of its HILL CLIMB RACING trademark for
the purposes of the Policy.
...The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith...
2025-05-02 - Case Details
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules requires the panel to:
“… decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any Rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE mark, registered in the United States of America.
...If the respondent fails to do so, a complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4 (a)(ii) of the UDRP”.
In this case, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE mark, and the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use that mark (or any expression confusingly similar to it), whether in a domain name or otherwise. ...
2010-11-29 - Case Details
The Complainant is anyway not prejudiced to file a new complaint concerning this additional domain name.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires that the Complainant demonstrates that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven the disputed domain names , and are confusingly similar to the trademarks SBO and SBOBET in which it has rights.
The Panel therefore finds that the first requirement under 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...
2014-08-13 - Case Details
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 6
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element that the Complainants must establish is that each disputed domain name is identical with,
or confusingly similar to, trademark rights of one of the Complainants.
...As the Complainants have not established the second disputed domain name is identical with or confusingly
similar to their trademarks, the Complaint in respect of the second disputed domain name must fail.
...
2022-11-17 - Case Details
For a thorough review of the case, the Panel hereby decides to additionally review the Supplemental Filings of both parties, alongside with their replies to Procedural Order No.1.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is required to establish the two following elements: (i) that it has trademark rights, and, if so, (ii) that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark.
...Based on the foregoing findings, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks, and paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is established.
...
2021-09-01 - Case Details
Identity/confusing similarity
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to trademark registrations 478857, 604142 and 698252 and is likely to cause confusion regarding the mark TIANGUIS TURISTICO MEXICO.
...For the same reason, the Panel finds the disputed domain
name is not confusingly similar to any of those marks. Complainant has not established
this element of its case with respect to those marks.
...
2004-08-09 - Case Details
The majority of the Panel finds as follows on these elements.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Respondent does not dispute that Complainant owns trademark rights in the mark ORANGE BOWL. ...Accordingly, we conclude that the remaining domain name at issue is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights under Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
B. ...
2005-02-09 - Case Details
As the amended Complaint removed Contact Privacy as a named Respondent, the Panel considers it appropriate to treat the Respondent as the entity (Terry Majamaki) named in the amended Complaint.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established (albeit, only in response to the Panel Order of October 18, 2014) that it has rights in a registered mark for THE GREAT WALL MARATHON. The Panel considers that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to that mark.
Whether a mark is confusingly similar to a domain name is to be generally judged against the dominant textual elements of the mark. ...
2014-11-11 - Case Details
Complainants
The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the First and Third Complainants’ HOUSE OF CB
mark.
The Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence presented, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the HOUSE OF CB
mark.
...
2023-04-06 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the TATA mark.
...Bearing in mind that the first element of paragraph 4(a) functions primarily as a standing requirement, the Panel considers that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to two trademarks in which the Complainant has rights. ...
2021-07-15 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant provides evidence of trademark registrations and argues that the Domain Name is
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, because the Domain Name incorporates the trademark
in its entirety. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark A16Z. The test for confusing similarity
page 3
involves a comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name.
...
2023-01-16 - Case Details
The Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark ELECTROLUX.
The test for confusingly similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. ...The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's ELECTROLUX mark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent does not have any registered trademarks or trade names corresponding to the Domain Name. ...
2016-07-15 - Case Details
The said three elements are now considered as follows.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
On the evidence available, the Panel has no hesitation in finding that the Complainant has rights in the trade mark BANCA INTESA and also, to the extent necessary, the trade mark INTESA by reason of the facts recited in section 4 above.
...The incorporation of the
marks BANCA INTESA and INTESA in their entirely renders the domain name confusingly
similar to these marks. See Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers
and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr., WIPO
Case No. ...
2005-10-31 - Case Details
D2007-1122 (addition of “s” between Master and Card held confusingly similar); Edmunds.com, Inc. v. Triple E Holdings Limited,
WIPO Case No. D2006-1095 (addition of a second “m” o the mark EDMUNDS was confusingly similar); Bits & Pieces Inc. d/b/a Bits and Pieces v. LaPorte Holdings, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0244 ( confusingly similar to ); Volkswagen AG v. Digi Real Estate Foundation,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0952; America Online, Inc. v. ...
2008-05-28 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that the Respondent's use of a confusingly similar Domain Name for the purposes of monetary gain by providing click-through links to other companies' products and services is evidence of bad faith. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar to a Mark in which Complainant has Rights
It is not disputed that the Complainant has registered rights in the mark CREDITCOMPARE.
...
2009-07-29 - Case Details