The Panel finds therefore, that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar because it incorporates both Complainant’s registered AMAZON Mark and its AWS Mark in their entirety and each remains recognizable within the disputed domain name.
...It is generally regarded as prima facie evidence of no rights or legitimate interests if a complainant shows that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark, that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and that a complainant has not authorized the respondent to use its mark (or an expression which is confusingly similar to its mark), whether in the disputed domain name or otherwise. ...
2021-02-03 - Case Details
The Respondent has been given the notice of the proceedings in accordance with the Rules.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panelist considers that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks T-MOBILE of the Complainant.
...Moreover, it has been previously held that the registration of a domain name confusingly similar to a well-known trademark is an indication of bad faith:
"It is highly unlikely that the Respondent has selected the domain name
without having knowledge of the Complainant's use of his mark. ...
2004-05-26 - Case Details
The Respondent focuses his response on the first factor of the ICANN policy, arguing that wal-martsucks.com is neither identical to nor confusingly similar to "Wal-Mart." He relies on Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp. v. Faber, 29 F. Supp. 2d 1161 (C.D. ...Thus, the Panel concludes that a domain name is "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. ...
2000-09-21 - Case Details
International Electronic Communications,
Inc., WIPO Case No.D2000-0270.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name
is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ARROW mark
for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...The Respondent has registered and is using a domain name that is confusingly
similar to the Complainant’s ARROW mark to attract, for commercial gain,
internet users to its website. ...
2004-11-03 - Case Details
The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AIR FRANCE word mark because it fully incorporates that mark. See PepsiCo, Inc. v. ...D2001-1184 (use of short phrases with widely-known mark still found confusingly similar to that mark); Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. Albert Jackson,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0087 (holding that the inclusion of the generic term “printer” in was confusingly similar to complainant’s trademark OKIDATA). ...
2008-05-19 - Case Details
Complainant
The domain name is identical or confusingly
similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights
The Complainant contends that the contested domain name
is virtually identical and thus confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENERGIZER
marks. ...This
fact also weighs in favor of a finding that the domain
name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
In view of the foregoing, Complainant submits that Respondent’s domain
name is identical or confusingly similar to trademarks in which it has rights
as required under the Policy para 4(a)(i).
...
2007-02-07 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, does Complainant have rights in a relevant mark and, second, is the Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to that mark.
...It is well established that a domain name is confusingly
similar to a mark “when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly
similar approximation.” ...
2007-01-22 - Case Details
The Respondent has created websites at the sites to which the subject domain names resolve that appear confusingly similar to the Complainant’s website at which the Complainant offers its products and services, including use of the registered trademark CYVEILLANCE without misspelling.
...The Respondent does not dispute that the subject domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. He says that the websites to which the subject domain names resolve are parody sites and that the Complainant is seeking to reverse hijack the subject domain names.
...
2006-05-30 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, does Complainant have rights in a relevant mark and, second, is the Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to that mark.
...It is well established that a domain name is
confusingly similar to a mark “when the domain name includes the trademark,
or a confusingly similar approximation.” ...
2006-06-27 - Case Details
Moreover, other panels have twice held
that the omission of a single letter from Complainant's VoiceStream®
Mark to be confusingly similar to such mark. See VoiceStream Wireless Corporation
v. Dotsan, WIPO Case No. D2001-1412
(March 25, 2002) (omission of R from held confusingly
similar to VoiceStream® Mark); VoiceStream Wireless Corporation
v. ...D2001-1413
(March 25, 2002) (omission of A from held confusingly
similar to VoiceStream® Mark).
Moreover, transposing adjacent letters renders the domain name confusingly
similar to the underlying mark. ...
2002-09-13 - Case Details
Thus, the Respondent has created a domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
As such, the Respondent has demonstrated a knowledge of and familiarity with the Complainant’s brand and business.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks TIK TOK and MUSICAL.LY. ...
2021-08-25 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold inquiry: a threshold investigation into whether a
complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. ...Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
B. Respondent
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-10-17 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith...
2025-06-02 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold inquiry: a threshold investigation into whether a
complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. ...Second, the registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a registered trademark by an entity
that has no relationship to that mark may be sufficient evidence of opportunistic bad faith. ...
2025-04-28 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold inquiry: a threshold investigation into whether a
complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is
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 where the trademark is recognizable. Moreover, it is well recognized that a disputed
domain name that incorporates a trademark may be confusingly similar to that trademark for purposes of the
Policy despite the addition of a hyphen. ...
2022-06-21 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s FASHION
NOVA Mark in which Complainant has valid trademark rights. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-08-08 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which he has rights.
...Further, a domain name that entirely incorporates a mark along with another term is generally found to be confusingly similar to the mark. See for instance F.Hoffmann-LaRoche AG v. Direct Privacy ID 9CC6,
WIPO Case No. ...
2013-09-30 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, a domain name is confusingly similar to a mark where the domain name fully incorporates the mark and simply adds a descriptive term that does not negate the confusing similarity. ...The Panel finds that both of the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s VOLKSWAGEN mark, that the Domain Name is also confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MULTIVAN mark, and that the Domain Name is also confusingly similar to the Complainant’s GOLF PLUS mark. ...
2012-11-23 - Case Details
The Panel may draw appropriate
inferences from the available evidence submitted by the Complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element, the Complainant must have relevant UDRP rights in a trademark and the disputed
domain name must be identical or confusingly similar to such trademark.
...The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to such mark. Previous
panels have found that domain names containing the EQUIFAX trademark plus another word are confusingly
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 4
similar to the EQUIFAX Trademark (See Equifax Inc. v. ...
2023-08-15 - Case Details
The Panel may draw appropriate
inferences from the available evidence submitted by the Complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element, the Complainant must have relevant UDRP rights in a trademark and the disputed
domain name must be identical or confusingly similar to such trademark.
...The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark. Previous
panels have found that domain names containing the EQUIFAX trademark plus another word are confusingly
similar to the EQUIFAX trademark (See Equifax Inc. v. ...
2023-08-14 - Case Details