loader image

UDRP Panels have unanimously accepted that the inclusion of the and

UDRP Panels have unanimously <a href="https://hookupdate.net/mature-dating-review/">Mature Dating what is</a> accepted that the inclusion of the and

Waseem A Ali / Micron Web Services, FA 1785616 ( Forum e to be confusingly similar to the STARBUCKS mark, as the addition of the generic term real to Complainant’s e from Complainant’s trade mark pursuant to the Policy

In the first place, before establishing whether or not the disputed domain names , , and are confusingly similar to Complainants trademarks SNAPCHAT and SNAP, the Panel wants to point out that the addition of generic top-level domain (gTLD), i.e., , .net, .biz, .edu, .org, cannot be considered when determining if the registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the registered trademark [iii] as the insertion of a gTLD has a distinctive function [iv] .

net (gTLD), in the disputed domain name is not a factor in analyzing whether a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark in which Complainant asserts rights. In the Wal–0477 (WIPO ), the Panel stated that:

[T]he addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) name is without legal significance since use of a gTLD is required of domain name registrants, is one of only several such gTLDs, and does not serve to identify a specific enterprise as a source of goods or services.

The confusing similarity between the domain names containing a partial reproduction of the trademark SNAPCHAT, especially the SNAP portion of the trademark, has been previously decided by other Panels as follows:

See Huron Consulting Group Inc

Respondents domain name contains the dominant portion of the SNAP marks, as well as the generic or descriptive terms hack and master and the gTLD. Similar changes in a registered mark have failed to sufficiently distinguish a domain name for the purposes of Policy 4(a)(i). See King Ranch IP, LLC v. E Miller, FA 1785596 ( Forum ) (Complainants trademark is used in-part with regard to barbecue related goods and services; the term bbq is thus suggestive of the KING RANCH tradee is confusingly similar to Complainants KING RANCH mark.); see also Starbucks Corporation d/b/a Starbucks Coffee Company v. ); see also Longo Brothers Fruit Markets Inc. v. John Obeye / DOMAIN MAY BE FOR SALE, CHECK AFTERNIC, FA 1734634 ( Forum ) ([O]f course it is well established in prior UDRP cases that the addition of a suffix is irrelevant when determining if a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark.). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondents domain name is confusingly similar to Complainants SNAP and SNAPCHAT marks. [v]

domain names are confusingly similar to Complainants SNAPCHAT mark as they contain a dominant portion of Complainants mark and merely add the term premium and the .org and .biz gTLDs. The addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and gTLD fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy 4(a)(i). v. David White, FA 1701395 (Forum e is confusingly similar to the HURON CONSULTING GROUP and HURON HEALTHCARE marks under Policy 4(a)(i) because in creating the domain name, the respondent contains the dominant portion of the marks and appends the term inc and a gTLD) [vi] .

Complainant argues Respondents domain name is confusingly similar to Complainants SNAP mark as it includes the dominant part of the SNAP mark and merely adds the generic term login and the gTLD. The addition of a generic term and a gTLD fail to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 ( Forum ) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainants entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainants SNAP mark per Policy 4(a)(i). [vii]

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.