Correspondingly the Respondent is not granted a right of reply.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has produced a copy of the registration record in the WIPO Madrid Monitor of International Trademarks showing it to be the owner of the trademark HACKINGTEAM. ...Accordingly the Panel finds the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and finds for the Complainant under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2018-06-01 - Case Details
Further, Complainant submits that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Marks as it consists only of the term “spinzcasino” and the suffix “.com”, which both do not create an overall different impression.
...Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant is the proprietor of a number of trade mark registrations for the word and figurative marks “SPINCASINO”, including in the European Union. ...
2020-11-24 - Case Details
Belize Domain WhoIs Service Lt,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1954).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is a territorial chamber of the official Spanish Chamber of Commerce operating under the name Cámara Gijón. ...This behavior, in addition to the fact that the Respondent has also been named a respondent in a similar case (involving a domain name confusingly similar to the name and trademark of an Indian entity, which domain name resolved to a Web site with content in Japanese, related to foreign exchange trading) (see WIPRO Limited v. ...
2019-11-21 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its trademark AIR FRANCE, in that its trademark AIR FRANCE is entirely reproduced in the Domain Name, in combination with the generic or descriptive term “site.” ...Policy, paragraph 4(a).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established widespread use and prior registration rights in its AIR FRANCE trademark, which is incorporated in its entirety into the Domain Name. ...
2008-10-23 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is virtually identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SONY PICTURES registered trade mark. The Respondent has incorporated the Complainant’s distinctive SONY PICTURES mark in its entirety into the disputed domain name, and the only difference is the inversion of the letters “c” and “t” in the word “pictures”. ...Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the burden of proof lies with the Complainant to establish that all these three elements are satisfied.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has produced sufficient evidence to prove that it has registered trade mark rights in the marks SONY and SONY PICTURES in the United States.
...
2008-07-22 - Case Details
The Respondent's Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainants have rights; and
2 The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names; and
3. The Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
1. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainants have registered trade mark rights in SONY. The Panel is satisfied that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainants' SONY trade marks in that the dominant component of each of the Domain Names is the word “sony”, the letter group “bg” in each Domain Name is the common identifier of a Bulgarian website or business, and the top level domain “.com” does not serve as a distinguishing element. ...
2009-11-23 - Case Details
The Trading Force Limited
WIPO Case No. D2002-1038.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks.
...By this combination, the domain name needs to be assessed as confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark family comprising the suffix “cell”.
Hence, the Panel finds that the first requirement in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is fulfilled.
...
2010-04-20 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the EVIAN trademarks owned by the Complainant. The term “detox” appended to the EVIAN trademark in the disputed domain name does not diminish confusing similarity. ...The Panel accepts in this case that this is a reasonable course of action and its findings will be in respect of Private Whois Escrow Domains Private Limited and/or Pluto Domain Services Private Limited together and separately.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is required to prove that it has rights in a trademark, and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark.
...
2009-03-27 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name , is confusingly similar to the trademark RANBAXY owned by the Complainant. ...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the trademark of the Complainant.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent does not claim any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...
2008-01-09 - Case Details
Asdak, FA96542 (February 28, 2001) where the NAF panel found sufficient
proof that the respondent was not commonly known by the domain name that was
confusingly similar to the complainant’s famous VICTORIA’S SECRET
trademark because of the complainant’s well established use of the mark.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established in these proceedings that it is the owner of and has rights in a number of registered trademarks for the words Red Letter and Red Letter Days in the European Union including national rights in the United Kingdom and in the United States and Australia. ...
2006-04-26 - Case Details
It is also well established that the specific top level of a domain name such as “.com”, “.org” or “.net” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar (See Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood & Wilson, Sr.,
WIPO Case No. ...D2000-0429)
The Panel thus finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which Complainant has exclusive rights and that the Complainant has established the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2005-06-27 - Case Details
The Panel considers each of these in turn below.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There are two parts to this inquiry: does the Complainant have trademark rights and, if so, is the disputed domain name identical or confusingly similar to those rights?
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The second factor that the Complainant is required to establish is that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
...
2006-01-03 - Case Details
a) The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to trademarks or service marks in which the Complainant has rights; (Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), Rules, paragraphs 3(b)(viii), (b)(ix)(1))
SFR is the owner of numerous trademarks rights throughout the world, including Great Britain. ...Consequently, this Panel considers its duty to make findings on the following issues before reaching a final decision and the Panel shall now turn to examine each one of them separately.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is convinced that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademarks.
...
2004-08-16 - Case Details
ICANN Policy, 4 (a)).
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name at issue is [<産経新聞.com>
(bq--3b2sg7kmmwyiaxq.com)]. The Panel finds that the characters of this domain
name “産経新聞” are confusingly similar to
the registered trademark held by the Complainant in Japan. ...The Chinese characters of the disputed
domain name are confusingly similar to the trademarks “産経新聞” owned by the Complainant. By
common knowledge, using the Chinese wording “産経新聞” as the second level of a
domain name can be a very direct, exact and preferred way to reflect the
Complainant’s identity, functions and services offered by the Complainant. ...
2001-08-02 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
As the Complainant has convincingly put forward, its trademark IKEA is, at
least in many commercial languages, an invented word with no meaning and therefore
inherently distinctive. ...This
is the more true as the Complainant operates on an international basis. In a
similar case, the Panel has considered the domain name
to be confusingly similar to the mark IKEA (Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v. ...
2004-02-13 - Case Details
In order to obtain the relief requested under the Policy, Complainant must prove in the Administrative Proceeding that each of the three elements of paragraph 4(a) are present:
(i) that the Domain Name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly
similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
and
7.7 The uncontradicted evidence of the Complainant satisfies the Panel that
the Respondent has registered a Domain Name which is identical or confusingly
similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark.
...iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
7.9 The registration of a name that is identical or confusingly similar to
that of Complainant which attempts to mask the identity of the registrant via
fictitious addresses and names has been held to be bad faith: See Digital
Channel Partners Ltd. v. ...
2002-05-01 - Case Details
As at the date of this Decision, the disputed domain name redirected to the domain name
displaying similar content as was published on the Website.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade
Mark; the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and the
disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Discussion and Findings
The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark.
Disregarding the generic Top-Level Domain “.bet”, the disputed domain name is identical to the Trade Mark.
...
2023-08-30 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trade marks.
The Complainant further claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the
disputed domain name. ...Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that, in order to obtain the transfer of the disputed domain name the
Complainant must prove:
(i) the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a name,
trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered or has subsequently been used in bad faith.
...
2025-11-06 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant asserts that it has rights in the FENDI mark through its various trademark registrations and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it merely incorporates an additional “e” into Complainant’s mark.
...Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant’s trademark registrations establish Complainant’s rights in the FENDI mark. ...
2019-02-12 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established trademark rights. The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. ...For assessing confusing similarity, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the generic Top-Level Domain “.com”, see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.11.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2020-05-05 - Case Details