The next question is whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade marks. It does not appear that there is any assertion by the Complainants that there is identity, although as a matter of fact the word “SHAW” does recur in each of the Complainants’ marks. ...However, the circumstances outlined in paragraph 4(b)((iv) appear to arise, in that the disputed domain name is clearly confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks and there is an offering of various services on the website and/or links to other sites.. ...
2011-01-19 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
Complainant
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar.
The disputed domain name is identical to the Respondent’s registered marks.
B. ...The Respondent did not avail himself of the procedure under this Act.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
At the time of registration of the domain name on October 17, 1998, the Complainant had no registered trademark, because the earliest registration date of the trademark was January 26, 1999.
...
2004-06-22 - Case Details
The burden for the Complainant, under paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN Policy, is to show:
(a) 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.
(b) That the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
...In the Panel’s view, all the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks which are registered in Sweden, the United Stated and other countries, i.e. ...
2000-11-24 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name consists of the HOLIDEX Mark in its entirety, plus the top level domain “.com”.
...The presence of the “.com” gTLD is of no significance
when determining whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to
a complainant’s trademark: see CBS Broadcasting Inc. v. Worldwide Webs,
Inc; WIPO Case No. ...
2004-09-29 - Case Details
In the circumstances, the Complainant submits, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The LE CREUSET mark instantly evokes the Complainant’s famous products and the addition of the term “direct” is of no material effect. ...Those elements are:
(i) that the 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 Domain Name; and
(iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2004-09-21 - Case Details
Zee TV is also the name of the television channel broadcast by the Complainants. The said Domain Name is identical and confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trademark, trade name and service mark in which the Complainants have rights. ...The Complainants must prove all the aforesaid three elements.
6.4 Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainants claim rights in the marks "Zee" and "ZEE TV". They claim to be the owners, proprietors and lawful users of these marks.
...
2001-08-10 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant submits that (1) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, in which the Complainant has rights; (2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; (3) the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...In conclusion, the domain name is confusingly similar with a trademark, in which the Complainant has rights.
2) Legitimate rights or interests in respect of the domain name
The term "Henniez" is the name of a small town in Switzerland and has no meaning in the Spanish language. ...
2001-07-31 - Case Details
Consequently, the Panel must assess the Complaint on its merits.
6.1 Is the domain name identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights?
This requires the Complainant to satisfy the Panel on two points. Firstly that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark claimed by the Complainant and, secondly, that the Complainant does indeed have rights in the mark.
...
2000-11-14 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complaint is based on the following grounds:
The Domain Names are Identical or Confusingly Similar to the Complainant’s Trade Marks
By virtue of the presence of the word "SATLYNX" in the domain names, the domain names at issue contain a word which is identical to the Trade Marks.
...Identical or Confusingly Similar to Complainant’s Rights
The Complainant has filed for registration of the trade mark SATLYNX in the
Benelux on March 15, 2002, and in the United Kingdom on April 14, 2002. ...
2002-09-25 - Case Details
It is a well established rule that in making an enquiry as to whether a trademark is identical or confusingly similar to a domain name, the domain extension, in this case “.com”, should be disregarded (Rohde & Schwartz GmbH & Co. ...The Panel accordingly finds that “i-to-i” remains as the distinctive and prominent component of the Disputed Domain Name, which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s I-TO-I mark, such that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2011-12-02 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant owns 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.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There are two parts to the inquiry under the first element of the Policy. The Complainant must first
demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark and secondly that the disputed domain name is identical or
confusingly similar to such trademark.
...
2014-05-05 - Case Details
It also says the Respondent is trying to confuse the public by using a similar color scheme as the Complainant as well as claiming the source of the website is a name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s name.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the Complainant’s Nextbite Trademark. The Disputed Domain Name is identical to that trademark – it is well established that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), in this case “.com”, does not affect the Disputed Domain Name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar. ...
2021-12-16 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
7.4 It is clear that the Complainant owns various registered trade marks that comprise or incorporate the term “Four Seasons” and that it is the owner of a US registered trade mark for FOUR SEASONS RESORT. ...This is a clear and obvious case of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a mark in which a complainant has rights. The Complainant has made out the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2010-03-02 - Case Details
It is claimed that as both of the Complainants have rights in trade marks to which the Domain Name is identical and/or confusingly similar, it is therefore appropriate for them to make the Complaint jointly.
Activities of the Respondent
The Respondent is said to be a small, privately owned company operating primarily in the North East of England. ...This is acknowledged by the Respondent who also accepts that the trademark and the disputed Domain Name are confusingly similar. The Panel agrees, and therefore rules that the contested domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark.
...
2002-06-03 - Case Details
Complainant
5.1 The Complainant contends that each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to at least one of its registered trade marks. In particular:
(i) All of the Domain Names incorporating the term “arshbilqis”, “bilqispa”, “madinatbilqisresorts”, or “madinatbilqis”, or “quasarbilgis” (i.e. 14 of the 21 Domain Names) are said to be confusingly similar to at least one of the Complainant's Balqis Residence Marks.
...Trade mark infringement and validity proceedings are not the same as proceedings under the Policy.4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.5 The Complainant clearly is the owner of a number of registered trade marks in a number of jurisdictions. ...
2008-11-07 - Case Details
The term Respondent when used in the rest of this decision should be read accordingly.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.17 Notwithstanding the submissions of the parties in relation to this issue, the question of confusing similarity is relatively straightforward. ...In the circumstances, the Panel has little difficulty in concluding that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a number of trade marks in which the Complainant has rights
6.18 This Panel is of the view that the non-textual element of the Complainant’s marks is something that needs to be taken into account when assessing the question of whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark6. ...
2008-09-25 - 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
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
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 IHOP trademark, for which it has obtained registration in the United States and a number of other countries. ...Therefore the Panel holds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's IHOP trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not afforded the Respondent any rights in the disputed domain name or in the trademark IHOP. ...
2014-12-23 - 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