In addition to the reasoning above, the Complainant believes that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks TRYGG and HANSA. The domain name contains both the trademarks TRYGG and HANSA in their entireties, only separated by a hyphen.
...Having established that the Domain name and some trademarks rightfully held by the Complainant are identical, while some other are confusingly similar, the Panel did not further examine the trademarks held by the complainant in other countries.
...
2003-04-22 - Case Details
There is no question that the domain name in dispute is identical or confusingly
similar to Complainant's mark. The domain name incorporates, in full, Complainant's
SGI mark. ...As noted above, Respondent not only uses a
confusingly similar domain name but its web site also features Complainant's
mark and implies that Respondent's products are covered by Complainant's
warranty.
7. ...
2000-12-13 - Case Details
Complainant further argues that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights and that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in dispute.
...While Respondent argues that it had no intent to infringe, the Panel notes that the issues of intent and infringement are not relevant to a determination of whether the domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
It is also clear that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. ...
2000-08-02 - 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 contains the Complainant’s registered trade mark in its entirety. The addition of an expression relating to specific banking services does nothing to prevent the disputed domain name from being identical or confusingly similar to the trade mark.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in relation to the disputed domain name.
...
2012-02-16 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name contains the entirety of Complainant’s registered trademark PRANDIN. ...Indeed, these additions to the trademarked name can increase confusion and similarity as they obviously suggest that the drug “Prandin” is offered for sale on the website; a point which also goes to bad faith use below.
Thus, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant has clearly affirmed and asserted that it has no contractual or other arrangement with Respondent that would permit or authorize Respondent to make use of its trademark, and that this is all the more evident as Complainant has its own website for the promotion of Prandin. ...
2012-04-20 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the TUMBLR mark owned by Complainant. ...
2013-05-31 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trade mark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.
...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name contains the Complainant's trade mark in its entirety. The additional term “sclub” does nothing to distinguish the disputed domain name from the trade mark. ...
2012-12-21 - 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 is identical to the Complainant's registered mark except that it replaces the letter “e” in the Complainant’s mark with an “a”.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is thus confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights and that the Complainant has fulfilled paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2018-11-07 - Case Details
Where a respondent has constructive notice of a trademark, and yet registers
a confusingly similar domain name thereto, the respondent cannot be said to
have a legitimate interest in the domain name.
...The Panel will not deal with all the allegations contained in the Complaint and the Response, but only those that are of particular relevance for taking a decision in the case before the Panel.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant’s mark "ONKYO" is a distinctive word that is registered and has been used in a number of countries including in the country of residence of respondent USA. ...
2002-10-22 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly similar
The Complainant contends that the domain name is identical to the trademark and service mark MELODIFESTIVALEN in which the Complainant has rights. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has shown that it is the owner of Swedish Trademark Registrations for the marks MELODIFESTIVALEN and BOLIBOMPA. ...
2004-06-14 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant submits that each of the four disputed domain names is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights under the paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...WIPO Panel Overview 2.0. paragraph 4.6.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it is the registered owners of both word and figurative trademarks for the mark ECCO. ...
2013-03-01 - Case Details
The Panel considers that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to those trade marks, the textual component of which consists of the term “discover Qatar” – both in English and transliterated into Arabic. ...For the above reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2015-07-08 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the trademark IFIXIT through registration demonstrated in the record. ...The Panel also concludes that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the IFIXIT mark. The Domain Names entirely incorporate the IFIXIT mark, and add the geographic descriptor “USA” and, in one instance, the word “business” The mark is clearly recognizable within the Domain Names, notwithstanding these additional terms.
...
2021-05-07 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant has prior rights to those of the Respondent to the SPORTSBET.IO mark, being of some eight years standing, and dating from 2013. ...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2021-11-18 - Case Details
Accordingly, each of the disputed
domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ANKER or SOUNDCORE marks for the
purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. ...Respondents
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-11-13 - Case Details
In these circumstances, the Panel will proceed to a decision.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has rights in the mark VOLTAS in terms of this element of the Policy. ...In these circumstances, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights and accordingly that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy have been satisfied.
...
2017-03-29 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a domain name in which it has rights. In particular, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name reproduces the whole of its registered trademark SUA MÚSICA with the addition only of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it has registered trademark rights in Brazil for the mark SUA MÚSICA comprising a stylized form of those words. ...
2018-07-30 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy have been satisfied.
...
2018-07-10 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has rights in its registered mark WORLD OF DARKNESS in terms of the first element of the Policy. ...In these circumstances, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights and accordingly that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy have been satisfied.
...
2018-05-09 - Case Details
Generally
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SANLORENZO trademarks, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, and that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b) of the Policy.
...D. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has uncontested rights in its SANLORENZO trademarks (the “Marks”), both by virtue of its exclusive licence of trademark registrations and its own trademark registration and as a result of the goodwill and reputation acquired through its use of the Marks over many years. ...
2019-03-28 - Case Details