The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which it has rights. The Complainant states that the disputed domain name comprises its MONSTER ENERGY trademark in its entirety together with the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.quebec”. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it is the owner of registrations for the trademark MONSTER ENERGY in numerous jurisdictions throughout the world including Canada. ...
2016-08-12 - Case Details
The Panel considers that, the Response having been submitted prior to its appointment, the Response and its Annexes shall be taken into account to rule on the merits of the case.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), the Complainants have to prove that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...UDRP panels widely agree that incorporating a trademark into a domain name is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark for purpose of the Policy (see, e.g., Uniroyal Engineered Products, Inc. v. ...
2016-01-11 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has established trade mark rights in SCHICK, SCHICK HYDRO and SCHICK HYDRO SILK.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to these trade marks in which the Complainant has rights and finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied in favor of the Complainant.
...
2016-02-08 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is clear to this Panel that the Disputed Domain Name is identical to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...See also WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 3.4 ("[A] respondent's registration of large numbers of domain names through automated processes, with no appropriate mechanism for ascertaining whether these may be identical or confusingly similar to such trademarks, may support a finding of bad faith.")...
2015-12-15 - Case Details
Complainant
A1. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights:
The only difference between the Complainant's trade mark and the disputed domain name is the generic Top-Level Domain ".com". ...On the basis of the 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 OPPANOL mark by virtue of its use and registration of the same as a trade mark.
...
2015-11-11 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is identical or at a minimum confusingly similar to the D.E MASTER BLENDERS 1753 trademark, as it incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is, according to the submitted evidence, the owner of the registered trademark D.E MASTERBLENDERS 1753. ...
2015-12-28 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts that that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its WIKIPEDIA Trademark in view of the Disputed Domain Name incorporates the WIKIPEDIA Trademark in its entirety. ...In light of the above, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's WIKIPEDIA Trademark. Therefore paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
...
2018-09-07 - Case Details
According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the HEATSTICKS trademark and to the HEETS trademark of the Complainant, as it reproduces the HEETS trademark combined with the term “sticks” which forms the second part of the HEATSTICKS trademark.
...In view of the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the HEETS trademark and to the HEATSTICKS trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2018-11-21 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complaint includes the following contentions:
(i) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant states that the disputed domain names fully incorporate the well-known BAYER marks and are identical to such marks. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant submits evidence for its registered trademarks in the European Union, Cyprus and Turkey. ...
2018-11-22 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark SCHLEICH. In particular, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name fully incorporates that trademark together with the addition of the descriptive term "shop", which is not effective to eliminate any confusing similarity.
...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
The Complainant has established that it is the owner of an EUTM for the mark SCHLEICH. ...
2017-10-11 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is identical to its registered trademarks. It submits that it is also confusingly similar to its Moneycorp Card services and therefore infringes rights held by the Complainant according to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...D2000-0113).
Hence, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark MONEYCORP. Moreover, the disputed domain name suggests that it resolves to a website operated or otherwise authorized by the Complainant in relation to its Moneycorp Card services. ...
2016-12-15 - Case Details
Consequently, the Panel must proceed with an assessment of the Complaint on its merits.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is .
The Complainant has demonstrated United States registered trademark rights in WALDEN UNIVERSITY, originally issued in 2003 in the name of Walden University, Inc. ...In this Panel’s experience, domainers are well aware that cost/benefit analysis can dictate that companies will often just put up with unauthorised, but low-level, parasitic use of confusingly similar domain names, because the cost of pursuing them may exceed the estimated losses due to the parasitic activities.
...
2012-02-20 - Case Details
Substantive Elements of the Policy
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the following three elements is present:
(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark; and
(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.
(i) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant’s highly distinctive and well established ABB Marks.
...
2012-04-02 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the trademark SWAROVSKI and highlights that the addition of the term “outlets” and of the hyphen does not lessen the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark.
...In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2013-03-04 - Case Details
D2009-0985 which states “[s]uch situations typically involve shared or common legal interests based on an agency, licensing, or affiliate relationship between the co-complainants”).
2. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Disputed Domain Name is identical to the Trade Mark. The Respondent’s addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” does not distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from the Trade Mark.
3. ...However, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s default.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy provides that the Complainants must establish that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.
...
2012-07-16 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the TIFFANY Trade Marks, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the Domain Names, and that the Domain Names were registered and used in bad faith. ...Having considered all the circumstances of this case, the Panel determines that English is the language of the proceeding.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts the evidence filed by the Complainant that TIFFANY is a well-known trade mark.
...
2011-02-22 - Case Details
The said three elements are considered below.
1. Identical or Confusingly Similar
On the evidence available, the Panel has no hesitation in finding that the Complainant has rights in the mark FIVEFINGERS. ...The two pronunciations are “fivefingers” and “fivefingersso”, which are confusingly similar. Applying the imperfect recollection test to ordinary consumers having an ordinary memory, they are liable to be deceived or confused. ...
2010-11-11 - Case Details
It will then address the Respondent's allegations of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.3 The Complainant is the owner of a Benelux registered trade mark for the word mark SLIZED. ...The Panel has no hesitation in concluding that the Complainant's marks and the Domain Name are confusingly similar.
6.5 In the circumstances, the Complainant has made out the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2016-08-15 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to its MIXMAG trademark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names and that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Names in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
...In the circumstances, the Panel is satisfied that it is appropriate for a single decision to be given in respect of both Domain Names, given the effective identity of the registrant.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Although the Respondent challenges the strength of the Complainant's rights in the mark MIXMAG, it does not appear to deny that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. ...
2014-11-05 - Case Details
As the Respondent has failed to submit a Response to the Complainants' contentions, the Panel may choose to accept as true all of the Complainants' reasonable allegations (see Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. v. null John Zuccarini, Country Walk,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0487).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Previous UDRP panels have found that the trademark ARMANI is well known (see, among others, GA MODEFINE SA., Giorgio Armani S.P.A. v. ...The disputed domain names and are confusingly similar to the Complainants' trademark ARMANI, and identical to the trademark ARMANI HOTEL because they wholly incorporate both of Complainants' trademarks.
...
2014-09-26 - Case Details