Therefore, the Domain Name could be considered virtually identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first requirement that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark, under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
B. ...
2022-01-10 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the FB SOLUTION trademark. The Panel finds each Disputed Domain Name
is confusingly similar to this trademark. ...Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that
domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark for purposes of the Policy “when the
domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in
the domain name” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2022-12-27 - Case Details
D2006-1043 (finding confusingly similar to EDMUND’S mark because of easily made typing errors); Sharman License Holdings, Limited v. ...InsuranceExpress.com Inc., Gene Graceffo,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0196 (finding confusingly similar to AAA, which offered insurance services).
Here, the domain name is clearly “typosquatting” and is therefore confusingly similar. ...
2011-04-06 - Case Details
AAIM,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0403.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant must establish rights in a trademark and secondly that the disputed domain name is identical to or confusingly similar to the trademark in which Complainant has rights.
...D2003-0696 (a domain name is “nearly identical or confusingly similar” to a complainant's mark when it “fully incorporate[s] said mark”; holding , , and other domains confusingly similar to complainant’s PEPSI mark).
...
2011-02-25 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark and, second, is the Disputed Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. ...It is well established that a domain name that wholly incorporates a trademark may be deemed confusingly similar to that trademark for purposes of the Policy. When a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing (see the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7).
...
2020-09-30 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trade and service marks for POWER90 and P90X.
...Similarly, the Panel does not consider that the additional “x” element of the disputed domain name is sufficient to change the overall impression that the disputed domain is one which is connected to the Complainant and thus it is confusingly similar to the Complainant's POWER90 trade and service marks.
The Panel is not persuaded by the Complainant's submission that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its P90X mark but, as the Panel has found that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's POWER90 marks, this finding requires no further exploration.
...
2010-06-18 - Case Details
The Complainant also contends the disputed domain names are confusingly similar
to the Complainant’s "Lauder" mark, which is based on the family name
of Estee Lauder. ...If the Panel were to accept that, as a domain name, Ronald Lauder is confusingly
similar to the mark "Lauder", it would mean that, on the Internet,
every mark composed of a last or family name potentially is confusingly similar
to every first name plus that last name, even though all the individuals involved
might have different first names. ...
2003-04-02 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To succeed under the first UDRP element, the Complainant is required to prove that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...The Respondent is using the Domain Name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark in connection with services similar to those of the Complainant. ...
2019-10-24 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
(a) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark LEXI LOVE, which is registered under United States. trademark Registration No. 3,475,773 (May 13, 2008).
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights in the trademark LEXI LOVE by virtue of its United States trademark registration No. 3,475,773.
...
2009-05-26 - Case Details
D2022-1162 (finding to be confusingly similar to the MICHELIN trademark).
As a result, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proved that the disputed domain name is identical or
confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...The Parties
A. Complainant
B. Respondent
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith...
2022-12-29 - Case Details
The Domain Name is almost identical, and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s federally registered trademark, and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s domain name () that incorporates that trademark. ...A complainant must prove each of these three elements.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name is almost identical to the Complainant’s mark (the only difference being a “g” added to the end of “jumpin”), but not quite, so it is necessary to consider whether it is confusingly similar. ...
2011-07-21 - Case Details
The Complainant alleges that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Marks as they
fully incorporate one or more of the Complainant’s Marks. ...The Complainant alleges that the Third Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Marks as it
fully incorporates the Complainant’s NEW BALANCE and 574 trademarks and that the added geographic
term, “ireland”, does not render the Third Domain Name any less similar to the Complainant’s Marks.
...
2022-06-28 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark for the mark OLX. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant does have registered trademark rights in the mark OLX by virtue of its trademark registrations, including those listed in section 4 of this decision.
...
2016-06-13 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s
contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Domain Name
The domain name in dispute contains the word “thompson”, which is confusingly similar to the Complainants’ well-known “THOMSON” trademark. ...D2001-0104
where “dunkindoughnuts.com> was confusingly similar to “Dunkin’Dounuts”;
Société Air France v. Alvaro Collazo, WIPO
Case No. D2003-0417 where was confusingly similar
to “Air France”).
...
2004-11-10 - Case Details
Policy, paragraph 4(a).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based upon the trademark registrations cited by Complainant, it is apparent that Complainant has rights in and to the TURBOTAX Trademark.
...As set forth in section 1.7 of WIPO Overview 3.0, “in cases where… at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing”. Further, section 1.9 of WIPO Overview 3.0 states: “A domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element.” ...
2020-08-21 - Case Details
MTO C.A. and Diabetes Education Long Life,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0363 (finding confusingly similar to DELL); Telstra Corporation Limited v. Ozurls,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0046 (finding confusingly similar to TELSTRA). ...As the Disputed Domain Name uses the mark PRADA, it is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PRADA Marks.
For all of the foregoing reasons, this Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name, , is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PRADA Marks in which Complainant has established rights. ...
2011-06-01 - Case Details
Further, when a domain name incorporates a distinctive mark in its entirety,
that creates sufficient similarity between a mark and a domain name to render
the domain name confusingly similar. EAuto v. Triple S. Auto Parts, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0047 (March 24, 2000).
The Domain Name, is confusingly similar to the CIALIS
mark because it incorporates the term CIALIS in its entirety. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CIALIS trademark or service mark and that Complainant has superior rights in such mark(s) to Respondent.
...
2005-07-29 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has registered several trademarks in Australia which contain the words “Bakers Delight”. ...This view (that “sucks” domain names are confusingly similar to the trademark) is the majority view of previous panels.
However, in some instances, previous panels have found that these type of domain names are not confusingly similar, because it is obvious to Internet users that the Complainant would not use a domain name which consists of its trademark and a derogatory term. ...
2008-03-03 - Case Details
D2001-0094 (April 3, 2001) (finding
confusingly similar to PLAYBOY); NetWizards, Inc. v. Spectrum Enterprises,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1768 (April 4, 2001)
(finding confusingly similar to NETWIZARDS); Telstra
Corporation Ltd. v. ...D2000-0587,
(August 10, 2000), "`typosquatting,' is a practice that has been
condemned and been found to be confusingly similar to the marks which they mimic."
The contested domain name is also confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark
THE PARAGON, because it encompasses the dominant portion of said trademark.
...
2004-04-27 - Case Details
The Panel will deal with each of them in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The question here is whether the contentious domain names are identical or confusingly similar to any of the Complainant’s trademarks.
...It is now necessary to look at each of the domain names in order to see if they are identical or confusingly similar to any of the Complainant’s trademarks.
The Panel finds, first, that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark THE RIVER BELLE ONLINE CASINO. ...
2005-08-26 - Case Details