D2000-0011 among numerous other UDRP decisions.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
As to element (i) of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Panel acknowledges that the test concerning identity or confusing similarity is a factual one that should be satisfied by making a side-by-side comparison of Complainant’s trademark BERKADIA and the Domain Name, taking into account the degree of aural, visual, or conceptual similarity between the two, the similarity of the goods and services for which they are used and the inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the trademark.
...The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has sufficient trademark rights and that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BERKADIA trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
To determine whether Respondent possesses rights or legitimate interests concerning the Domain Name, the Panel should, but without limitation, consider the following:
1. ...
2012-05-15 - Case Details
The Panel will proceed to evaluate Complainant's evidence, and his own examination of Respondent’s website, against the requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar.
Complainant has demonstrated rights in its PRICELINE and NAME YOUR OWN PRICE marks sufficient to invoke the Policy. One of the disputed domain names incorporates the PRICELINE mark as its dominant feature, and the other two are confusingly similar to the NAME YOUR OWN PRICE marks. A long string of unbroken precedent holds that when the marks at issue are incorporated as the dominant feature of a domain name, for Policy purposes confusion is not obviated by addition of an everyday descriptive word. ...
2010-08-19 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant's registered trademark is the principal part of the disputed domain name. ...The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered trademark of Complainant.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The second legal ground to be demonstrated by Complainant, according to the provisions of the Policy, is Respondent's absence of any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, per paragraph 4(c)(i) – (iii).
...
2014-09-23 - Case Details
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant bears the burden of showing:
(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name incorporates the trademark VUARNET in its entirety.
Previous UDRP panels have held that when a domain name wholly incorporates a complainant’s registered trademark that may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy. ...
2014-01-30 - Case Details
According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its mark. The Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because he “does not run any business under the name and in style of Core Diagnostic” and “a perusal of the said website clearly shows that only mere information has [sic] given therein”.
...For the reasons set forth below, the Panel will not summarize the remainder of the Response.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
For the reasons set forth below, the Panel will not consider this element of the Policy. ...
2013-09-02 - Case Details
Under the Policy, the Complainant must prove that:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well established that gTLDs may typically be disregarded in the assessment under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy (e.g., Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2015-01-15 - Case Details
The domain name in dispute is confusingly similar to the trademarks because it reproduces letter by letter the BAYARD trademarks with the addition of the generic term "services" which does not make the disputed domain in issue distinctive. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel has considered the evidence set out above of the Complainant's trademark rights and its long history of trading using the marks BAYARD or BAYARD PRESSE. ...
2015-01-21 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and
(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is, according to the submitted evidence, the owner of the registered trademark ALLIANZ. ...
2012-12-03 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
The factual foundation of the Complainant’s contentions, as presented by the Complainant, while supporting its non-contradicted request for transfer of the disputed domain name by written evidence and ample reference to earlier UDRP decisions, leads the Panel to the following conclusions:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant’s multi-registered and well-known trademark FIDELITY together with the word “recruitmentuk”. ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered and well known trademark FIDELITY and those other Complainant’s FIDELITY trademarks with specifications that have been listed above under Section 4.
...
2013-03-27 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that:
1) The Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark registrations. The Disputed Domain Names comprise the only characterizing element “drmartens” and the descriptive elements “2011”, “only” and “uk” which do not assist to avoid the risk of confusion;
2) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names. ...The Panel proceeds to consider these 3 conditions below.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainants clearly have rights in the trade mark DR MARTENS by virtue of their trade mark registrations. ...
2012-05-04 - 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 not identical to the Complainant’s trademark ALDI. However, the additional inclusion of the generic term “discount” does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark and business name. ...Therefore the Panel holds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ALDI trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name or by the term “Aldi”. ...
2011-10-31 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
The Panel has reviewed the Complaint and supporting evidence and finds that the Complaint is made out.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There is no doubt that the addition of the suffix “.com” does not serve to vary a mark. The Complainant has shown that it has rights in the WATTYL mark and that the disputed domain name incorporates that mark and simply adds “.com” to it. The disputed domain name is thus confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights and the first element of the Policy is made out.
...
2010-02-10 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
The Panel finds that Complainant owns common-law trademark rights in the mark THE BREAD BECKERS; that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark; that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, and that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has been using the mark THE BREAD BECKERS in commerce for twelve years in connection with the bread business and related goods and services. ...
2010-02-10 - Case Details
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed in this proceeding, the Complainant must prove (i) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which it has rights; (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...This includes the acceptance of plausible evidence of the Complainant which has not been disputed.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has registered and unregistered rights in the mark 7DAYS. ...
2010-03-11 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
The burden for the Complainant under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is to prove:
(i) that the Domain Name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
(ii) that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant alleges and the Respondent agrees that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s TELEROUTE mark.
...
2007-07-16 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant submits:
1. The Respondent has registered a domain name that is “clearly” identical to the trademark of the Complainant which could cause confusion in the minds of potential customers looking to find the Complainants website.
...The Complainant submits that the Respondent in using the domain name has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating confusion with the Complainant.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied from the Complainant’s evidence that it has unregistered trademark rights in the mark STAN JAMES. ...
2007-06-13 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the complainant must prove each of the following:
(1) 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
(2) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Panels have long held that the addition of a gTLD suffix is irrelevant in an
examination of identicality. ...
2006-08-03 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s
contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name, if not absolutely identical, is very similar to the Complainant registered trademark PEEK UND CLOPPENBURG. ...Consequently the panel finds that the domain name at issue is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant, nor does it have the permission, consent or license of the Complainant to register the domain name at issue.
...
2007-04-02 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
In order for the disputed domain name to be transferred to the Complainant, the Complainant must have demonstrated, in accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, that:
(i) the disputed 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 Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has rights in the trademark ROCKSTAR GAMES. ...
2008-01-08 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
Complainant contends that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to its mark, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names, and that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Names in bad faith by offering to sell it for profit.
...Discussion
To obtain relief under the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the complainant to prove each of the following:
(1) 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
(2) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name; and
(3) that the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
...
2001-04-26 - Case Details