Parties contention
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. ...
2010-06-16 - Case Details
These elements are discussed as follows.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant provides copies of registration certificates, evidencing the registration of its EVEL KNIEVEL mark in Canada, and on the principal register of the USPTO. ...For these reasons, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The suggestion from the Respondent's correspondence is that it might claim rights or legitimate interests based on operating the “Evel Knievel Museum” in Niagra Falls Ontario. ...
2010-05-27 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or at least confusingly similar to its registered NUTRI PACK mark and to its various senior registered and related domain names.
...Further, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s NUTRI PACK mark. They are phonetic equivalents and are nearly identical in appearance. ...
2010-08-23 - Case Details
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking is defined in paragraph 1 of the Rules as meaning “using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name.”
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel adopts the reasoning of the panel in Rosa María Clara Pallarés v. Dennis Heinz,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0548 and finds that the Domain Name is “as close to being identical with the Complainant’s marks as it could be, and it certainly is confusingly similar to those marks.”
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
In light of the Panel’s finding under the next head, it is unnecessary for the Panel to address this issue.
...
2010-08-23 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has not proffered a United States federal trademark registration to prove its rights in LA OPERA. ...When comparing a challenged domain name and a trademark, the addition of the “.com” or “.org” suffix is generally irrelevant for the purpose of determining whether the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. Bradford & Bingley Plc v. Registrant info@fashionID.com 987654321,
WIPO Case No. ...
2013-09-30 - Case Details
In addition, the Panel considers it more likely to promote a resolution of the dispute between the parties if the dispute is dealt with on its substantive merits rather than procedural matters.
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.
There are two parts to this inquiry: the Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark and, if so, the disputed domain name must be shown to be identical or confusingly similar to the trademark.
The Complainant has proven ownership of the registered trademarks for CARREFOUR identified above.
...
2014-09-24 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends, in relevant part, as follows:
The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights because “Complainant owns very extensive rights in the VIRGIN mark,” including those set forth in an eight-page schedule provided by Complainant; previous decisions under the Policy (including but not limited to Virgin Enterprises Limited v. ...As to whether the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the VIRGIN mark, the relevant comparison to be made is with the second-level portion of the domain names only (i.e., “virgincare”), as it is well-established that the top-level domain names (i.e., “.com” and “.net”) should be disregarded for this purpose. ...
2013-12-06 - Case Details
This is not an issue relevant under the first limb of the Policy for the reasons discussed in section 5B below, but is relevant to the issues under the second and third limbs of the Policy.
B. 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 name, trade mark or service mark.
There are two parts to this inquiry: the Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in a name, a trade mark or a service mark and, if so, the disputed domain name must be identical or confusingly similar to it.
The Complainant has proven that it owns the registered trade marks for 99ACRES and 99ACRES.COM in India referred to in Section 4 above.
...
2013-12-05 - Case Details
The Panel also finds that the disputed domain name is either identical or confusingly similar to Complainants’ CANDY CRUSH mark. The disputed domain name incorporates Complainants’ entire registered trademark with the addition of only the descriptive term “secrets”. ...D2002-1115 (addition of generic words “healthcare” to form domain name deemed “confusingly similar to the BAYER trademark”); Aventis Pharma SA., Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH v. Jonathan Valicenti,
WIPO Case No. ...
2013-10-18 - Case Details
Michael Robertson,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0009.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The case record contains ample evidence to demonstrate Complainant’s rights in the registered ROCHE trademark. The Panel determines that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ROCHE mark. The test for determining confusing similarity involves a direct comparison of a complainant’s trademark and the textual string which comprises the domain name. ...
2013-10-30 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with its registered trademark GOYARD since it incorporates the Complainant’s well-known trademark in its entirety.
...Accordingly, the Panel determines that the language of this administrative proceeding should be English.
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.
...
2013-12-19 - Case Details
Therefore, the Panel elects to accept the Complainant’s supplemental submission and has relied on it in reaching this decision.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant’s FIMO Marks and is identical to such marks. ...In this regard, the Panel wishes to point out that 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. ...
2015-03-30 - Case Details
Consequently, the Panel finds that it is appropriate to issue the Decision in English.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In the present case, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the Complainant owns rights in the WILIER TRIESTINA mark.
...Accordingly, the Panel finds the disputed domain name to be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s WILIER TRIESTINA mark. The Panel thus finds that the Complainant has satisfied its burden of proof under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2013-08-20 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to his well-known O2 trademarks. It is of the opinion that the addition of the geographical indicator “Iran” is not suitable to diminish the degree of confusing similarity, because of its descriptive meaning. ...D2000-1487, where finding of bad faith was given in light of the Complainant’s international recognition precluding innocent registration of a confusingly similar domain name). According to paragraph 2 of the Policy, it is the responsibility of the respondent to determine whether the registration of the disputed domain name infringes or violates someone else’s rights.
...
2013-08-16 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts that;
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to trademarks in which it has rights.
In support of this contention, the Complainant relies on, amongst other matters, the two registered trademarks for AMERICAN DYNAMICS referred to above as well as on two stylized trade marks for “AD AMERICAN DYNAMICS”, the earliest of which was filed in 2003. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant owns and is using, trademarks which (once the .com suffix is disregarded) are identical to the disputed domain name. ...
2013-06-28 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it is the owner of a number of ELECTROLUX trademarks in China and internationally. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights and the condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...
2013-04-17 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant claims first that it is the owner of a well-known Trademark and that the Disputed Domain Names which reproduce the entirety of the Trademark without the addition of any prefix or suffix, only the removal of a hyphen, are confusingly similar to the Trademark.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names because the Respondent has not demonstrated or established rights or a legitimate interest in respect of the Disputed Domain Names. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has rights in the Trademark.
A comparison between the Disputed Domain Names and the Trademark owned by the Complainant shows that the Disputed Domain Names are identical or at least confusingly similar to it to the extent that they reproduce the entirety of the Trademark, whereby, with respect to the second of the Disputed Domain Names (i.e. ...
2015-03-11 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademarks DAVID YURMAN and YURMAN in which it has rights. Documentary evidence of confusion is produced in the form of emails from a person who states that she purchased merchandise from the website to which resolved.
...The Panel finds the disputed domain names to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademarks DAVID YURMAN or YURMAN in the terms of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2015-02-10 - Case Details
Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trade name and registered trademark, adding only the plural letter “s”.
...Where, as here, Respondent is in default, the Panel may draw such inferences as it considers appropriate. Policy, paragraph 14(b).
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered trademark PORSCHE. ...
2015-01-05 - Case Details
The Complainant claimed that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademarks for EUREX and BÖRSE FRANKFURT as listed in paragraph 4 above and the disputed domain names consist entirely of the Complainant’s trademarks, while the gTLD “.exchange” is purely descriptive and should be disregarded. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well established that the gTLDs may typically be disregarded in the assessment under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy (see e.g., Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2015-06-16 - Case Details