The addition of
these geographical indications do not avoid these domain names to be found confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s trademarks, on the contrary, as the Complainant operates and is renown in this country, the
addition of these elements exacerbates the likelihood of confusion. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the First Disputed Domain Name is identical to the VIRGIN MEGASTORE
mark, and all other disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. The
first element of the Policy under paragraph 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
...
2023-04-03 - Case Details
CONFUSING SIMILARITY
Complainant contends that the subject domain name, , is confusingly similar to both its SOTHEBY’S and SOTHEBYS marks. It contends the absence of the apostrophe from what the Panel shall call its primary mark SOTHEBY’S is not a point of distinction which removes any confusion attaching to the complete appropriation of the mark in the subject domain name. ...While there is no supporting proof offered, the Panel is prepared to
accept the Respondent’s contention that registration inaccuracies in the WHOIS
record are a matter of inadvertance on the Respondent’s part and that the site
has never been sponsored or carried any paid advertising and the Respondent
has not been paid for making links available on the site.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to the registered
marks on the basis of comparison of the names and, if any authority is needed
to support the proposition, I agree with the principles enunciated in AT&T
Corp. v. ...
2003-07-03 - Case Details
After reviewing this Complaint, the Respondent admits that the disputed domain
name is identical or confusingly similar to Complaint’s alleged mark but refuses
to accept that the Complainant has exclusive rights in the mark "British
Council".
...The panel finds the disputed domain name
is virtually identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark
THE BRITISH COUNCIL [8]. The Complainant has
established this element.
...
2001-10-15 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends:
1. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's SONY mark. The incorporation of a trade mark in its entirety in the Disputed Domain name is sufficient to establish that the disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered mark. ...Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules requires the panel to:
“decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any Rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Respondent acknowledges the Complainant's rights in its SONY mark, and acknowledges that that mark is confusingly similar to the Domain Name. ...
2008-10-15 - Case Details
b) The Domain Names and are identical and confusingly similar to Complainant’s trade/service marks because ‘CHARLIE BROWN’ is the primary component of each of these marks and each of the Domain Names.
...The Panel determines that "farewelltocharliebrown.com" and "goodbyecharliebrown.com" are confusingly similar to "CHARLIE BROWN" within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
Complainant has met the burden of proving that Respondent is the registrant of domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights, and it has thus established the first of the three elements necessary to a finding that Respondent has engaged in abusive domain name registration.
...
2000-11-17 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights
(i) The Complainant submits that the relevant part of the domain name, “aljazeera”, is confusingly identical to the Complainant’s trademarks referred to in the Complaint. ...That is because the Complainant’s AL JAZEERA trademark is well-known and has a strong reputation worldwide, and the domain name is confusingly similar to the name and registered trademark AL JAZEERA and is not a domain name any user would choose unless it knew of the AL JAZEERA trademark. ...
2005-07-29 - Case Details
It has been established in numerous cases, that the presence of the gTLDs is
irrelevant in deciding whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar
to a registered trademark or service mark.
See: Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co v. Taylor, 21 F. ...For purposes of the Policy, it is sufficient for establishing the identical
or confusingly similar nature of the disputed domain name and the trademark
if there is virtual or essential identity between them, and the Panel sees no
reason to deviate from the sound reasoning in the numerous cases on this issue.
...
2003-05-13 - Case Details
The Complainants submit the grounds for these proceedings are listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainants contend that the disputed domain name is identical to the service mark in which the first Complainant has rights evidenced at Annex 6 of the Complaint. ...Respondent
The Respondent filed a Response to the allegations in the Complaint and requests the Panel to deny the remedy requested, namely transfer of the disputed domain names to the Complainants.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Respondent submits that the disputed domain name consists of 3 generic words and as a term it is a general descriptive term, meaning a fair about education. ...
2009-08-03 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which it has rights.
...RJG Engineering Inc, supra, the domain name was found to be identical or confusingly similar to the name of the German political party. The Panel finds that similar to the Buendnis 90 / Die Gruenen v. ...
2011-08-10 - Case Details
However, what form that promotion has taken is not explained.
5.2 It claims that the Domain Name comprising its mark and the term “English” is confusingly similar to a mark in which it holds rights, and cites various WIPO UDRP decisions and a US trade mark text book in support of that proposition.
5.3 It asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and claims that the Respondent is not known commonly known by the terms embodied in the Domain Name citing the case of Dell Inc. v. ...However, it is worth recording that had it done so, it is unlikely to have made a difference to the outcome in this case.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.18 Although the Respondent’s submissions on the issue of identical or confusingly similar are detailed the Panel has not found them particularly helpful or persuasive. ...
2012-04-16 - Case Details
The Panel will proceed on the basis that the Domain Name was registered by the Respondent in 2006.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There is no dispute that the Complainant has rights in the ARUBA NETWORKS trademark in various countries, including Australia. ...These requirements include: (1) the respondent must actually be offering goods or services related to the trademark in respect of which the domain name is confusingly similar; (2) the respondent must offer only those goods or services in connection with the disputed domain name; (3) the respondent must have disclosed its true relationship with the owner of the trademark to which the domain name is identical or confusingly similar; and (4) the respondent must not have attempted to “corner the market” in domain names that reflect that trademark – see, e.g., Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ...
2014-09-30 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that:
(1) The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. Even though the Complainant has not registered the word “xiha” as a trademark, the Complainant has rights in the word “xiha” as a trademark by virtue of its use. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first limb of paragraph 4(a) can be distilled into the following elements:
(1) There is a trademark or service mark;
(2) The Complainant has rights in that trademark or service mark; and
(3) The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark or service mark.
...
2010-11-10 - Case Details
Moreover, Respondent argues that he added a sufficient disclaimer after receiving Complainant’s letter in
November 2022 and that he improved the positioning of the disclaimer by moving it from the bottom to the
top of the landing page, albeit after the Complaint was filed in this proceeding.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Respondent concedes that Complainant has rights in the Mark and that the Disputed Domain Name is
confusingly similar to the Mark. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-02-14 - Case Details
The resolution of this dispute takes place in the context of a consideration of the requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is clear that the Complainant has rights to the word "windows" both by registration and extensive use. ...The question is whether the subject domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. Part of the inquiry is whether users are likely to confuse the two, that is, to believe that the subject domain name is affiliated with or authorized by the Complainant. ...
2003-05-01 - Case Details
Finally, the Respondent disputes that the domain name is confusingly similar, and dismisses the relevance of the claims of the Complainant as to instances of actual confusion. ...That the complainant has rights in a trade or service mark with which the respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar
In this regard, the Complainant has cited two registered trademarks, one US and the other Canadian. ...
2003-09-17 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar: Paragraph 4(a)(i)
The Complainants have submitted evidence that they are the owners of GIVI trademark registrations in many countries around the world.
...It is perfectly clear that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainants have rights.
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainants have proved the first of the three requirements.
...
2005-07-27 - Case Details
The Respondent submits that it is the Complainants who registered trademarks identical or confusingly similar to the domain name.
The Respondent states that searches through a search engine on the Internet shows plenty of leads to companies either controlled or associated with the Complainants. ...The Complainants will not be able to throw enough light on the evidence in this case, nor the case as a whole under this proceeding, see reasoning below.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It seems undisputed that the Complainants have satisfied the first requirement. The domain name is identical to the Complainants’ AQUASTEL trademarks. ...
2006-08-04 - Case Details
Such is the case according to Article 3(1) when the colliding sign is identical or confusingly similar to an earlier trademark and intended for identical or similar goods or services.
Such confusion is however not even necessary when the earlier trademark amounts to a well-known trademark in compliance with Article 15 of the Swiss Trademark Act. ...A simple visual test reveals that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark MIGROSBANK held by the Claimant. By registering a domain name which is identical to the Claimant's trademark but for the omission of the final “k”, the Respondent clearly tries to unfairly exploit the recognition and reputation of the Claimant's mark. ...
2008-11-10 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Respondent is required:
“to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that a third party (a ‘complainant') asserts to the applicable Provider, in compliance with the Rules of Procedure, that:
(i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.”
...The Panel also has reviewed different sources and documentation to confirm the Complainant's arguments and allegations.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has submitted ample documentary evidence to the effect that it has registered and has rights in the trademark ACOMPLIA.
...
2008-12-10 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name includes many of the Trademarks without any modification or change aside from removing the space between the words “kate” and “spade”, which is inconsequential. ...The Panel finds the disputed domain name to be identical or confusingly similar to the Trademarks and that the first element of the Policy has been met by Complainant.
...
2012-12-28 - Case Details