Second, the Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the HERBALIFE
trademarks, because it entirely incorporates such trademarks, which is the most distinctive element in the
Disputed Domain Name. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-01-20 - Case Details
The
page 3
Complainant asserts that the use of such trademark will generate a larger audience than would have been
the case had the Respondent chosen a domain name that was not confusingly similar to a famous mark.
The Complainant notes that due to the protection and constant use of the MICHELIN trademark by the
Complainant, there is no chance that the disputed domain name was registered by coincidence. ...Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2025-01-14 - Case Details
First, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s earlier BARILLA trademarks. In this regard, the Complainant claims that the disputed domain
name contains the BARILLA word mark in its entirety. ...For these reasons, the Panel holds that the delay in bringing the present Complaint
does not negatively impact on the Complainant’s cause.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-08-09 - Case Details
Especially, the Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s SODEXO and SODEXHO trademarks. The Complainant states that the disputed domain name
consists of the combination of its SODEXO trademark and the term “recluto”. ...Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-10-08 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence of the Complainant’s trademark registrations, the Panel finds that the Complainant
has rights in the semi-figurative SUNWARD mark.
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the
Complainant has rights. The Complainant has satisfied the first element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2022-09-19 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided evidence of its registration of its OLYMPIC trademark as an International
registration in Classes 1-45, the designation of this mark in the EU in the same classes and its trademark
registration in Switzerland (again in Classes 1-45). ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s OLYMPIC
trademark and finds in favor of the Complainant.
...
2022-10-26 - Case Details
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”.
page 5
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complaint asserts that the Domain Name is “identical or confusingly similar to a trade name in which the
Complainant has rights” (emphasis added), citing the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-06-21 - Case Details
In all of these circumstances, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s trademark and that the Complainant has carried its burden with regard to paragraph 4(a)(i) of
the Policy.
...Preliminary matter: Other Legal Proceedings and Respondent’s request for suspension
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
D. Rights or Legitimate Interests
E. Registered and Used in Bad Faith...
2023-05-19 - Case Details
Because the Disputed Domain Name incorporates Complainant’s Mark entirely, it is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s registered Mark. Respondent’s addition of the term “security” does not prevent a finding of
confusing similarity. ...D2022-4222
(finding confusingly similar to complainant’s ALLIED UNIVERSAL and ALLIED
UNIVERSAL SECURITY SERVICES marks).)
...
2023-04-12 - Case Details
page 4
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules directs the Panel to decide the 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 first element that the Complainant must establish is that the disputed domain name is identical with, or
confusingly similar to, the Complainant’s trademark rights.
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the disputed domain name is
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and the requirement under the first limb of the Policy is
satisfied.
...
2024-03-12 - Case Details
The Panel is also required under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy to examine whether the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark. The Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s ALBEMARLE trade mark in its entirety with the addition of the generic term “lithium”, a chemical element. ...The Panel therefore finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ALBEMARLE trade mark.
The Complainant has therefore satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2016-11-30 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the TAUBER trademark in which the Complainant claims to have rights.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element that the Complainant must establish is that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant rights.
...
2016-09-15 - Case Details
On the basis of the arguments and evidence introduced by the Complainant, the Panel concludes as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in the MOU name by virtue of its use and registration of the same as a trade mark.
...The addition of the generic Top‑Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com" does not impact the analysis of whether the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark.
...
2016-07-08 - Case Details
International Electronic Communications Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the LAMBORGHINI mark, in which the Complainant has demonstrated rights. ...Regardless, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to the LAMBORGHINI mark, and which adopts a naming convention used by authorized Lamborghini dealers. ...
2017-06-19 - Case Details
There is no basis for the Complaint against Domains By Proxy, LLC to have been maintained and the Panel dismisses it.
D. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it has trade mark rights in respect of the mark VEOLIA. ...While each case is judged on its own merits, in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trade mark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing.”
Adopting that approach, the Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s VEOLIA trade mark.
...
2018-05-23 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Ownership of a trademark registration is generally sufficient evidence that a complainant has the requisite rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...With Complainant’s rights in the TONER CONNECT mark established, the remaining question under the first element of the Policy is whether the disputed domain name (typically disregarding the generic Top-Level Domain “.com”) is identical or confusingly similar with Complainant’s mark. See B & H Foto & Electronics Corp. v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. / Joseph Gross,
WIPO Case No. ...
2019-03-06 - Case Details
i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
That the disputed domain name includes the Complainants’ famous name and trademark ALDI.
...Therefore, the Panel is of the opinion that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trademark ALDI. Accordingly, the first element of the Policy has been met.
...
2020-01-22 - Case Details
To ensure fairness, the Panel will also admit the Respondent's Supplemental Filing.
B. Identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark
The first element that the Complainant must establish is that the disputed domain name is identical with, or confusingly similar to, the Complainant's trademark rights.
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the disputed domain names are at least confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks and the requirement under the first limb of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2018-06-29 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element requires the Complainant to establish the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark in which it has rights.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name reflects the Complainant’s marks, namely its house mark OYO and the OYO LIFE mark and the disputed domain name is found confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant has fulfilled the first requirement under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2019-11-21 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(i) Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant states that its TALAGE trademark satisfies the threshold requirement of having trademark rights to qualify for standing to file a UDRP case. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in its TALAGE trademark based on ownership of the mark’s registration in the United States. ...
2019-06-25 - Case Details