Complainant further contends that the Domain Names are identical with and confusingly similar to the Character Name Marks pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
Respondent has not contested the assertions by Nintendo that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Character Name Marks.
...The WIPO panel agreed with Complainant, based on facts similar to those set forth in this Complaint, that the Registrant unlawfully registered an identical or confusingly similar domain name in bad faith. ...
2001-01-30 - Case Details
In particular, the Complainant asserts that:
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
- The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered FORD trademark, in light of the fact that it wholly incorporates the Complainant’s mark.
...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 trademark rights and the disputed domain name must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
...
2022-01-04 - Case Details
D2001-0055, p. 5 (finding the domain name “aolcasino” to
be confusingly similar to the AOL mark). See also Viacom International, Inc.
v. Erwin Tan, WIPO Case No. D2001-1440
(The domain names , and
are confusingly similar to the trademark MTV); Siebel Systems, Inc. v. Shoji
Mathew, WIPO Case No. D2002-0607 (siebelusergroup.com
confusingly similar to SIEBEL trademark); Carrefour S.A. v. Multigestiones
Puertonorte S.L., WIPO Case No. ...
2005-10-18 - Case Details
D2001-0546 (June 28, 2001) (ballysfitness.com> held to be confusingly
similar to ); Microsoft Corporation v. Microsof.com
aka Tarek Ahmed, WIPO Case No. D2000-0548
(July 21, 2000) ( held to be confusingly similar to );
Dow Jones & Company, Inc. and Dow Jones LP v. John Zuccarini, WIPO
Case No. ...
2001-12-18 - Case Details
D2018-2088 (finding to be
confusingly similar to the TRAVELOCITY mark); and Hertz System Inc. v. Home, Khuong Mai Ngoc, WIPO
Case No. D2012-1946 (finding to be confusingly similar to the HERTZ mark).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has demonstrated that the disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2022-12-05 - Case Details
Prior WIPO panels have recognized that the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety may be sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered mark. AT&T Corp. v. William Gormally,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0758 (finding confusingly similar to ATT); Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. ...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).
...
2010-11-08 - Case Details
Complainant
On the basis of facts stated above, the Complainant requests the Administrative Panel to issue a decision that the Domain Name, , be transferred to the Complainant, in accordance with paragraph 4(i) of the Policy, on the following grounds:
(1) The Domain Name at issue is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s TIAA-CREF mark: the Domain Name at issue, , is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s TIAA-CREF mark. ...D2000-0441
(finding , and among
others, are confusingly similar to the REUTERS mark); Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft
v. New York TV Tickets Inc., WIPO Case
No. ...
2006-02-01 - Case Details
Down Jones Update, WIPO Case No. D2000-0495, ( held confusingly similar to DOW JONES mark); Edgar Rice Burroughs, Inc. v. Adtel Communications, WIPO Case No. ...Moreover, typosquatting causes, by definition, confusingly similarity to the Complainant’s trademarks (“Respondent’s typo squatting, by its definition, renders the domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.”); see, Dow Jones & Co. v. ...
2006-05-17 - Case Details
WIPO
Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s JLL trademarks because it
reproduces said trademarks entirely (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7). ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-08-19 - Case Details
“The mere registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a famous trademark (…). The
Trademarks are well-known trademarks” Carrefour v. Perfect Privacy, LLC/Milen Radumilo, WIPO Case No.
...Complainant
The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant
has rights.
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?...
2023-03-27 - Case Details
It is also 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. ...Procedural Issues: Admissibility of Late Response and Parties’ Supplemental Filings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-02-22 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel determines that the language of this administrative proceeding be English.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...The result is that the Complainant has shown that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s REUSCH trademark, in which the Complainant has rights.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant has shown that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2014-01-21 - 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.
...D2000-0429, finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar).
The Panel finds that Complainant has proven that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks MICROSOFT.
...
2012-03-16 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it is the owner of registered trademark rights for the mark ESTAFETA.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-10-09 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel agrees with Complainant’s allegation that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s HAJOCA trademarks.
...The Panel finds
therefore that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks. See WIPO
Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition section 1.7 (“WIPO Overview
3.0”) (UDRP panels often determine that disputed domain names are confusingly similar to a complainant’s
marks where the disputed domain names fully incorporate a complainant’s marks).
1 Annexed to the Complaint is a copy of an email requesting submission to the sender of allegedly confidential financial data. ...
2022-10-24 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant first argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its prior trademarks and domain names. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to trademarks registered by the Complainant.
...
2021-05-19 - Case Details
The Panel notes that the Complainant invokes the benefit of several UDRP decisions which have considered domain names which were confusingly similar to the trademark AIR FRANCE. See especially Société Air France v. Ahmetovnuri, Ahmet Nuri,
WIPO Case No. ...This Panel agrees with this finding, and also considers that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark AIR FRANCE.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
...
2011-09-16 - Case Details
The third element a complainant must establish is that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establishes that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s respective trademark and hence the first element of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...
2018-12-24 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
(a) Identical or Confusingly Similar
In this case the sole difference in spelling between the trade mark and the disputed domain name is omission of the second “e” in “templeton”. The Panel determines that the terms FRANKLIN TEMPLETON and FRANKLIN TEMPLTON are confusing similar in appearance and sound to a consumer or Internet user to FRANKLINTEMPLTON. The terms “franklintempleton.com” and “franklintemplton” are confusingly similar in appearance and sound. ...
2004-06-14 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that:
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's MONSTER trademark.
The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's MONSTER trademark in which the Complainant has exclusive rights.
...The onus of proving these elements is on the complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element, the Complainant must have rights in a name, trademark or service mark, and the disputed domain name must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's name, trademark or service mark.
...
2009-02-19 - Case Details