Notably, the Complainant contends that all disputed domain names are confusingly similar to a trademark, in
which the Complainant owns rights. The Complainant brings forth that it maintains trademark registrations
for the terms WARTSILA and WÄRTSILA which predate the creation of the disputed domain names.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-05-14 - Case Details
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.
...Factual Background
5. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
6. Decision...
2024-06-25 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different disputed domain
name registrants (referred to below as “the Respondents”) in a single proceeding.
6.2. Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondents
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-07-17 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the f irst element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-07-08 - Case Details
Thus, the Panel will deal with each of the requirements in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The entirety of both TEREA and ILUMA marks of the Complainant are reproduced within the disputed
domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks for
the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
...
2024-07-04 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant explains that it owns rights in the IBM Trademark and that the disputed domain
name is confusingly similar to the IBM Trademark. The disputed domain name consists of the letters “ibm”
followed by a hyphen “-”, and the term “scala” (which is the name of an open source programming language).
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-07-01 - Case Details
Furthermore, the disputed domain name is also confusingly similar to the Complainant’s “CROP'S The natural choice” marks. The fact that some of the Complainant’s trademarks contain additional elements, namely the additional words “The natural choice” and graphical elements, does not preclude a finding of confusing similarity. ...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s word marks “Crop’s” and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s “CROP'S The natural choice” marks and that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2011-03-09 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain names fully incorporate the Complainant’s PARTOUCHE Marks in which the Complainant has exclusive rights.
...It is well established that a domain name that wholly incorporates a trademark may be confusingly similar to such trademark for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of common or generic words, such as “casino”, “casinos” and “poker tour” (See i.e..Microgaming Software Systems Limited v. ...
2011-01-04 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the burden of proof lies with Complainant to show each of the following three elements: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; (ii) 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 by Respondent in bad faith.
...However, this is not necessary given that Complainant owns United States Registrations for the BEYONCÉ trademark which establish rights in the BEYONCÉ mark prior to the registration date of the Domain Name.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Having determined that Complainant has rights in the mark BEYONCÉ, the next issue is whether the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. ...
2010-10-27 - Case Details
Furthermore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark SWAROVSKI despite the addition of the generic word “jewellery” (the American spelling for “jewelry”) and the generic top-level domain “.net”.
...It is well established practice to disregard the top-level part of the domain name, when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark in issue. Société Anonyme des Eaux Minerales d’Evian and Societe des Eaux de Volvic v. ...
2011-02-11 - Case Details
Furthermore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark SWAROVSKI despite the additional hyphen followed by the word “jewelry” and the generic top-level domain “.net”.
...It is well established practice to disregard the top-level part of the domain name, when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark in issue. Société Anonyme des Eaux Minerales d’Evian and Societe des Eaux de Volvic v. ...
2011-02-11 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.4 The Domain Name comprises the term "Quickphos", in respect of which the Complainant owns a Community Trade Mark, combined with the ".com" generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD"). In the circumstances, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is at least confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights. As to whether it is identical, see the Panel's comments in Philip Morris USA Inc. v. ...
2014-11-11 - Case Details
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements is satisfied:
(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; 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.
...Based on the facts presented by the Complainant, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered trademark, as the disputed domain name includes the Complainant's BRADESCO trademark in full with the mere addition of the non-distinctive term "protecao" and the suffix ".com".
...
2015-05-15 - Case Details
The Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that English shall be the language of the proceeding and the decision will be rendered in English.
7. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy provides that “[a domain-name holder] is required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that [a complainant] asserts to the applicable [administrative-dispute-resolution service providers], in compliance with the Rules of Procedure, that (i) [the disputed domain name] is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights[.]”
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and the condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...
2014-09-22 - Case Details
Therefore, given that the Panel in the instant case finds, as discussed below, that the Complainant has failed to prove the third element of the Policy – that is, paragraph 4(a)(iii) – the Panel makes no findings with respect to the second element of the Policy.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based upon the trademark registrations and usage cited by Complainant, it is apparent that Complainant has rights in and to the GNC Trademark.
As to whether the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the GNC Trademark, the relevant comparison to be made is with the second-level portion of the Domain Name only (i.e., “gnc”), as it is well-established that the TLD “.asia” may be disregarded for this purpose. ...
2014-09-19 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Panel that the Complainant has rights in the trade mark HOME RETAIL GROUP. ...In all of the above circumstances, the Panel determines that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights and that accordingly the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy have been satisfied.
...
2013-02-08 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name of the Respondent is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark ACCUTANE. The disputed domain name contains the entire ACCUTANE trademark of the Complainant. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles to use in rendering its decision: “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.”
...
2012-06-05 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name of the Respondent is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark ACCUTANE. The disputed domain name contains the entire ACCUTANE trademark of the Complainant. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles to use in rendering its decision: “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.”
...
2012-06-05 - Case Details
Upon considering the above, the Panel decides to accept the Complainant's request and rules that English be the language of proceedings.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...To this end, prior UDRP panels have established that attracting Internet traffic by using a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark may be evidence of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP.
...
2012-04-23 - Case Details
Parties Contentions
5.A Complainants
Identical or Confusingly Similar
5.A.1 The Complainants say that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to their RAPID SHARE trademarks for three reasons. ...That is, the Policy expressly recognizes that other circumstances can be evidence relevant to the requirements of paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and (iii) of the Policy.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.5 The Complainants have demonstrated that they have rights in the registered trademark RAPID SHARE.
6.6. ...
2010-06-17 - Case Details