Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BLUM trade mark, denies that the Respondent is an authorized distributor of its products, contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and contends that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
...B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name comprises the Complainant’s trade mark with the addition of the word “hardware” and the “.com” generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) identifier. ...
2016-02-01 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has made out this element in respect of each of the disputed domain names.
...In all of these circumstances, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights and accordingly that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy have been satisfied.
...
2016-06-02 - Case Details
Hence, under paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel is directed to decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of the Complainant’s undisputed factual representations.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s COLOR CLUB Marks.
...Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s COLOR CLUB Marks. Hence, the Complainant has satisfied its burden under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2014-06-13 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights over the trademark FOSSIL based on the
trademark registrations cited under section 4 above and the excerpt of the trademark registration details
submitted as annex 8 to the Complaint.
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the disputed domain names are confusingly
similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has established rights according to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the
Policy.
...
2022-10-20 - Case Details
The Panel considers each of these in turn below.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There are two parts to this inquiry: does the Complainant have trademark rights and, if so, is the disputed domain name identical or confusingly similar to those rights?
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The second factor that the Complainant is required to establish is that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
...
2006-01-03 - Case Details
Asdak, FA96542 (February 28, 2001) where the NAF panel found sufficient
proof that the respondent was not commonly known by the domain name that was
confusingly similar to the complainant’s famous VICTORIA’S SECRET
trademark because of the complainant’s well established use of the mark.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established in these proceedings that it is the owner of and has rights in a number of registered trademarks for the words Red Letter and Red Letter Days in the European Union including national rights in the United Kingdom and in the United States and Australia. ...
2006-04-26 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name , is confusingly similar to the trademark RANBAXY owned by the Complainant. ...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the trademark of the Complainant.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent does not claim any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...
2008-01-09 - Case Details
The Respondent's Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainants have rights; and
2 The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names; and
3. The Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
1. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainants have registered trade mark rights in SONY. The Panel is satisfied that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainants' SONY trade marks in that the dominant component of each of the Domain Names is the word “sony”, the letter group “bg” in each Domain Name is the common identifier of a Bulgarian website or business, and the top level domain “.com” does not serve as a distinguishing element. ...
2009-11-23 - Case Details
The Trading Force Limited
WIPO Case No. D2002-1038.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks.
...By this combination, the domain name needs to be assessed as confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark family comprising the suffix “cell”.
Hence, the Panel finds that the first requirement in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is fulfilled.
...
2010-04-20 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its trademark AIR FRANCE, in that its trademark AIR FRANCE is entirely reproduced in the Domain Name, in combination with the generic or descriptive term “site.” ...Policy, paragraph 4(a).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established widespread use and prior registration rights in its AIR FRANCE trademark, which is incorporated in its entirety into the Domain Name. ...
2008-10-23 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is virtually identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SONY PICTURES registered trade mark. The Respondent has incorporated the Complainant’s distinctive SONY PICTURES mark in its entirety into the disputed domain name, and the only difference is the inversion of the letters “c” and “t” in the word “pictures”. ...Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the burden of proof lies with the Complainant to establish that all these three elements are satisfied.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has produced sufficient evidence to prove that it has registered trade mark rights in the marks SONY and SONY PICTURES in the United States.
...
2008-07-22 - Case Details
a) The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to trademarks or service marks in which the Complainant has rights; (Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), Rules, paragraphs 3(b)(viii), (b)(ix)(1))
SFR is the owner of numerous trademarks rights throughout the world, including Great Britain. ...Consequently, this Panel considers its duty to make findings on the following issues before reaching a final decision and the Panel shall now turn to examine each one of them separately.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is convinced that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademarks.
...
2004-08-16 - Case Details
It is also well established that the specific top level of a domain name such as “.com”, “.org” or “.net” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar (See Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood & Wilson, Sr.,
WIPO Case No. ...D2000-0429)
The Panel thus finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which Complainant has exclusive rights and that the Complainant has established the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2005-06-27 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
As the Complainant has convincingly put forward, its trademark IKEA is, at
least in many commercial languages, an invented word with no meaning and therefore
inherently distinctive. ...This
is the more true as the Complainant operates on an international basis. In a
similar case, the Panel has considered the domain name
to be confusingly similar to the mark IKEA (Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v. ...
2004-02-13 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the EVIAN trademarks owned by the Complainant. The term “detox” appended to the EVIAN trademark in the disputed domain name does not diminish confusing similarity. ...The Panel accepts in this case that this is a reasonable course of action and its findings will be in respect of Private Whois Escrow Domains Private Limited and/or Pluto Domain Services Private Limited together and separately.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is required to prove that it has rights in a trademark, and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark.
...
2009-03-27 - Case Details
ICANN Policy, 4 (a)).
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name at issue is [<産経新聞.com>
(bq--3b2sg7kmmwyiaxq.com)]. The Panel finds that the characters of this domain
name “産経新聞” are confusingly similar to
the registered trademark held by the Complainant in Japan. ...The Chinese characters of the disputed
domain name are confusingly similar to the trademarks “産経新聞” owned by the Complainant. By
common knowledge, using the Chinese wording “産経新聞” as the second level of a
domain name can be a very direct, exact and preferred way to reflect the
Complainant’s identity, functions and services offered by the Complainant. ...
2001-08-02 - Case Details
In order to obtain the relief requested under the Policy, Complainant must prove in the Administrative Proceeding that each of the three elements of paragraph 4(a) are present:
(i) that the Domain Name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly
similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
and
7.7 The uncontradicted evidence of the Complainant satisfies the Panel that
the Respondent has registered a Domain Name which is identical or confusingly
similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark.
...iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
7.9 The registration of a name that is identical or confusingly similar to
that of Complainant which attempts to mask the identity of the registrant via
fictitious addresses and names has been held to be bad faith: See Digital
Channel Partners Ltd. v. ...
2002-05-01 - Case Details
The Respondent contends that the disputed domain name is not confusingly similar to a trademark in which
the Complainant has rights on the following grounds. The disputed domain name must be considered as a
whole. ...Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.
...
2026-05-28 - Case Details
Also, according to the Complainants, the Respondent has not been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name and was not authorized by the Complainants to operate a confusingly similar website offering similar services under the same name. The Complainants further claim that the Respondent deliberately concealed its identity and provided false contact information in the WhoIs records.Finally, the Complainants claim that the Disputed Domain Name is also being used in bad faith. ...The Panel will deal with each of these requirements in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar to a name in respect of which a right or rights are recognized or established by national law of a Member State and/or Community law.
...
2018-06-13 - Case Details
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark.
Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...Each of the aforesaid three elements must be proved by a complainant to warrant relief.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has provided evidence of registration of the trademark READY2FISH on the Principal Register of the USPTO, and has asserted use in commerce of the trademark. ...
2010-07-15 - Case Details