Complainant
Complainant asserts that it has rights in the FENDI mark through its various trademark registrations and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it merely incorporates an additional “e” into Complainant’s mark.
...Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant’s trademark registrations establish Complainant’s rights in the FENDI mark. ...
2019-02-12 - 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 established trademark rights. The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. ...For assessing confusing similarity, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the generic Top-Level Domain “.com”, see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.11.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2020-05-05 - Case Details
The Respondent prominently and pervasively uses the Complainant’s F5 marks without authorization or licence to defraud Internet and other users by using those marks for services that are confusingly similar to web and cloud services creating a high likelihood that consumers will be confused and mistakenly believe the Complainant is associated with or endorses the Respondent.
...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name consists of the Complainant’s F5 mark (which is registered in, inter alia, the United States for web related services with first use in commerce recorded as in 1996 and registered on September 9, 1997), and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.wtf”.
...
2017-05-31 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Under the Policy, the Complainant must prove, as regards each disputed domain name, that:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which it has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Each disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s world-renowned trademark and “.com”. ...
2017-09-04 - 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 established rights in the trademark SKYSCANNER. The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. ...For the purposes of assessing confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2020-01-07 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
On the basis of the facts and evidence introduced by the Complainant, and with regard to paragraphs 4(a), (b) and (c) of the Policy, the Panel concludes as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate its registered rights in the DPD trademark in numerous jurisdictions, including the United States.
...It is the consensus view of UDPR panels that the addition of descriptive terms, such as “lieferung” which means “delivery” in German, does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the Policy (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), sections 1.7 and 1.8).
The disputed domain name is therefore confusingly similar to the Complainant’s DPD trademark, and the Complainant has fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2020-01-29 - Case Details
Thus, it is clear that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's validly registered trademark.
Given that the Complainant's use of the ARKEMA trademark predates the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name, the burden is on the Respondent to establish its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is comprised of the Complainant's trademark ARKEMA and the suffix "corporation". ...
2015-05-20 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
The factual foundation of the Complainant's contentions, as presented by the Complainant, while supporting its non-contradicted request for transfer of the disputed domain name by written evidence and ample reference to earlier UDRP case decisions, leads the Panel to the following conclusions:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant's multi-registered and well-known trademark STATOIL together with the word "petroleum". ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has made evident that it has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use its trademark STATOIL. ...
2015-05-15 - Case Details
According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its mark. Due to its reputation, the public will automatically recognize the mark SIEMENS, and Internet users will have the false impression that the web site at the disputed domain name is an official website of the Complainant or of one of the Complainant's business partners.
...Tom Keogan,
WIPO Case No. D2008-1720.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
For the reasons indicated above, the Panel need not consider this element of the Policy.
...
2015-04-22 - Case Details
Several of them are provided as annexes to the Complaint.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BHP BILLITON marks, being virtually identical to them but for a misspelling (duplication of the letter “i”).
...Discussion and Findings
The Panel finds this to be a clear case of “typosquatting” in which Respondent has registered a misspelling of a well-known mark without rights or legitimate interests.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is identical in spelling, meaning, and sound to Complainant’s well‑established trademark, but for an easily-overlooked typographical variation, namely the duplication of the second letter “i” in the Complainant’s trademark as shown in the disputed domain name. ...
2015-09-17 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(i) The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademark
The Complainant submits that the Domain Name incorporates the Trademark in its entirety and that the additional words “buy” and suffix “st” do not sufficiently distinguish the Domain Name from the Trademark. ...Discussion and Findings
(i) he Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademark
The only difference between the Domain Name and the Trademark is the addition of the generic term “buy” at the front and the letters “st” at the end. ...
2013-04-16 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s trademark JACKPOT PARTY with the addition of the generic terms “online slots”.
According to WIPO UDRP case law, the addition of a generic term to a trademark does not normally alter the fact that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark (for a similar case, cf. Stanworth Development Limited v. Susana Gonzales, Smart Answer S.A.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2011-04-06 - Case Details
It is universally recognized that the ARMANI trademarks are well-known all over the world.
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. It incorporates entirely both the Complainant’s trademark EMPORIO ARMANI, used for watches, and ARMANI. ...Discussion and Findings
The factual foundation of the Complainant’s contentions, as presented by the Complainant, while supporting its non contradicted complaint by written evidence and reference to earlier UDRP case decisions, leads the Panel to the following conclusions:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant’s trademarks ARMANI that are here in issue have been proven by ample written documentation about registrations and uses to have become known world-wide, and not least to be well known also in United Kingdom, at the time of Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name. ...
2011-05-19 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In the present matter, Respondent omitted the letter “e“ from the terms “deutsche-leasing“, which were filed as trademarks.
...The Panel therefore finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant‘s trademarks.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent has chosen not to contest Complainant‘s allegations.
...
2009-11-17 - Case Details
The Complaint
In its complaint Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are identical
or confusingly similar to Complainant's trademarks.
Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in
the domain names as Respondent does not have any trademark rights to the disputed
domain names and has never been authorized, or otherwise permitted by the Complainant,
to use any of its trademarks or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating
any of these trademarks. ...Decision
In the light of the foregoing, the Panel decides that the domain names registered
by Respondent are confusingly similar to the corresponding trademark applications
of Complainant, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect
of those domain names and that the domain names in issue have been registered
and are being used in bad faith by Respondent.
...
2002-07-08 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence presented, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the CERES POWER
mark.
...In the present case, given that the disputed domain name incorporates
the entirety of the CERES POWER trademark, it may be considered confusingly similar to that mark. See
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the
Complainant has rights. ...
2022-11-08 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant, essentially, asserts that:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical and/or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BIOMERIEUX trademark, because:
- the Complainant owns registered company names “BIOMERIEUX” in most countries of the world, including for example United States (bioMérieux Inc.), United Kingdom (bioMérieux UK Limited), Greece (bioMérieux Hellas S.A.) and France (bioMérieux SA). ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Primarily, the Panel emphasizes that under general consensus view, the mere fact of ownership of a registered trademark by the complainant is generally sufficient to satisfy the threshold requirement of having trademark rights (see section 1.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDPR Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”)).
...
2018-02-08 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade name and to the PORSCHE trademark. The addition of the word "racing" suggests that the associated website is operated by the Complainant and is dedicated to its car racing activities.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided evidence and has thus established its rights in the PORSCHE trademark, registered for the territories of various countries around the world, including the Russian Federation. ...
2013-01-08 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(i) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that each of the disputed domain names is identical to his personal name and confusingly similar to the name of his law firm because each such domain name either contains his personal name, in full or with his middle name either abbreviated as an initial or omitted, or his surname “Randazza” which also appears as a formative term, in his firm name. ...As such, any use to which the Respondent were to put any of the Complainant’s RANDAZZA Marks or one confusingly similar thereto in connection with the identical or even similar services to those currently provided by the Complainant, in circumstances as are present here, may violate the exclusive trademark rights now residing with the Complainant. ...
2012-12-03 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its BLACKBERRY trade mark.
The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.
...Both visually and phonetically the Domain Name and the trade mark are very similar.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2009-05-29 - Case Details