Policy, paragraph 4(a).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
On the f irst element, a complainant must prove that (1) it has rights in a trademark and (2) the domain name
is identical or confusingly similar to this trademark. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-06-30 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
As set forth in section 1.7 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third
Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) the standing test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively
straightforward comparison between the trademark and the disputed domain name to determine whether the
disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the trademark. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-09-27 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark
INSTAGRAM. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-03-03 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant points out that the key difference between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name is the obvious misspelling of the trademark where the second letter “i” is replaced with the letter “e”. ...Therefore, the Complainant has proven under the circumstances that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which it has demonstrable rights and in doing so has satisfied the first element of the Policy.
...
2013-10-14 - Case Details
Considering these requirements, the Panel rules as follows:
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 a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...The Panel finds that the
disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CARREFOUR marks. The Respondent’s
incorporation of the Complainant’s mark in full in the disputed domain name is evidence that the disputed
domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks. ...
2024-11-12 - Case Details
Turning now to the “carrefuor” element of the disputed domain name, section 1.9 of WIPO Overview 3.0 provides that “[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”. Section 1.9 of WIPO Overview 3.0 provides the following examples of common, obvious, or intentional misspellings of a mark that panels have considered to be confusingly similar: “(i) adjacent keyboard letters, (ii) substitution of similar-appearing characters (e.g., upper vs lower-case letters or numbers used to look like letters), (iii) the use of different letters that appear similar in different fonts, (iv) the use of non-Latin internationalized or accented characters, (v) the inversion of letters and numbers, or (vi) the addition or interspersion of other terms or numbers.”
In the present case, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CARREFOUR mark by inverting the letters “o” and “u”.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the CARREFOUR mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...
2020-06-02 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has easily established its rights in the CVS 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. ...Accordingly the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks and hence the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...
2019-09-24 - Case Details
Policy, paragraph 4(a).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a complainant to prove that the disputed domain name is “identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which [it] has rights.”
...The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.” Florida Department of Management Service v. ...
2009-08-26 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it has registered trademark rights in the marks WINTRUST
FINANCIAL CORPORATION and WINTRUST. ...The Panel also finds, in this particular case, that the content of the Respondent’s website affirms
confusingly similarity as contemplated by paragraph 1.7 of WIPO Overview 3.0.
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the
Complainant has rights.
...
2023-01-09 - 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 ARCELORMITTAL trademarks, 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.
...
2021-03-17 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trademark WETRANSFER since they both include the term “transfer”, consist of three syllables and are used for the same services.
...The Respondent concludes that there is no compelling evidence to suggest that the registration of the disputed domain name was made in bad faith.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires that the Complainant demonstrate that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2015-02-11 - Case Details
The replacement of the last letter of a trademark with a similar sounding ending to the word does not prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. ...For all these reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is not called “carvannaars” or anything similar. ...
2021-04-12 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is factually and legally confusingly similar to the trademark registered by the Complainant as outlined above, the only difference being the inversion of the letters “a” and “n” in the middle of the wording. ...(3) The Panel finds and decides that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith as it allows access to the websites of potential competitors of the Complainant and is, or potentially is misleading and the basis of loss or damage to the Complainant resulting from the apparent prior similar efforts of the Respondent.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar:
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks granted to the Complainant over two (2) years prior to the registration by the Respondent of the disputed domain name.
...
2011-04-07 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainants have trademark rights to SVEA and EXCHANGE FINANS with reference to the trademark registrations. ...The Disputed Domain Name contains the entire SVEA trademark and the fact that the Disputed Domain Name also contains non-distinctive and generic terms shall be disregarded when determining whether a domain name or a trademark are identical or confusingly similar. The Panel notes that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant 1's trademarks. ...
2015-02-17 - 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 or identical to the Complainant’s registered trademark, BHP, in light of the fact that it wholly incorporates the Complainant’s mark.
...The Respondent has failed to file a response in these proceedings and is therefore in default and 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.
...
2015-07-01 - Case Details
The addition of the gTLD “.com” does not add any distinctiveness to the Domain Name and it is standard practice to disregard the gTLDs under the “confusingly similar” test.
The Domain Name should be considered as confusingly similar to the registered trademark ELECTROLUX.
...The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the ELECTROLUX mark for the purposes of the Policy and thus paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been established.
...
2017-06-16 - Case Details
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. The Panel concludes that in the present case, the Disputed
Domain Name is confusingly similar to the ASURION Mark.
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2025-02-11 - Case Details
A complainant must prove each of these three
elements to succeed.
page 4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is
confusingly similar to the ARCELORMITTAL trademark for the purposes of the Policy and thus paragraph 4(a)(i)
of the Policy (the first element) has been established.
...
2025-05-05 - Case Details
For the purpose of determining whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark, the gTLD “.org” is disregarded as this is a technical requirement of registration.
...Moreover, the registration by a respondent of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a well-known trade mark will often raise a presumption of a bad faith registration; see, by way of example; Walgreen Co. v. ...
2021-05-12 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant must establish that it has a trademark or service mark and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark or service mark for the Complainant to succeed.
...The Respondent has registered the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known trademark. UDRP panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. ...
2021-05-04 - Case Details