A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first requirement under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to establish the disputed
domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark in which it has 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...
2022-09-06 - 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. ...
2021-04-06 - 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. ...
2021-04-06 - 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 establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...Considering how the Respondent has (i) adopted a domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and (ii) uses it in a figurative form remarkably similar to the form in which the Complainant’s trademark is used, it is clear that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and targeting its trademark when registering the disputed domain name.
...
2021-06-24 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established that it is the owner of the Trademark.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainants’ Trademark. ...The generic Top-Level Domain “.shop” is a standard registration requirement and does not prevent the
disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Trademark (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section
1.11.1).
The Panel therefore finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademark.
...
2023-10-25 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds on the evidence adduced by the Complainant as to the registration of its trademark that the Complainant has rights in its trademark BRANDSMART U.S.A. ...The Panel accordingly finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to marks in which the Complainant has rights, for the purpose of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2018-09-10 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows:
The Complainant has argued that the Complaint is filed against multiple respondents due to a consolidation scenario, referring to both registrants of the Disputed Domain Names together as “The Respondent”.
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ASHLEY MADISON trademark. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Names and are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark ASHLEY MADISON. ...
2019-09-04 - Case Details
The Complainant maintains that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark on the basis of the visual similarity between and <0tis.com>. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove that (a) it has rights in a trademark or service mark, and (b) the Disputed Domain Name is identical to or confusingly similar to such a trademark or service mark.
...
2004-10-12 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent admits that the disputed domain names and are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trademarks, and that the domain names and are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainants’ domain name .
...Therefore, the Panel accepts the Complaint as submitted.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Both parties agree that the disputed domain names and are identical or confusingly similar to Complainants registered trademarks.
...
2008-05-21 - Case Details
Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, and that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith.
...Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant must demonstrate that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...
2007-12-21 - Case Details
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.
...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.” ...
2015-03-09 - Case Details
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's TELEFONBUCH mark because it contains the TELEFONBUCH mark in its entirety. ...Here, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's TELEFONBUCH and DASTELEFONBUCH marks as it fully incorporates Complainant's claimed TELEFONBUCH mark in its entirety. ...
2017-05-26 - Case Details
Thus,
the Panel finds that the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trademarks was
registered in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.1.4.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-08-24 - 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.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the first element of the Policy has been established.
...
2025-11-05 - 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 domain name is identical
or confusingly similar to that trademark. ...It
can be inferred that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its FACEBOOK Mark
when it registered the confusingly similar Disputed Domain Name. UDRP panels have found that the
registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a well-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity
can create a presumption of bad faith. ...
2022-06-03 - 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, and an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical
or confusingly similar to that 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...
2023-03-30 - Case Details
To summarize the Complaint, the Complainant is the owner of registration for the trademark ONEWHEEL, in
respect of motorized vehicles. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark owned by the
Complainant. By registering the Domain Name that comprises the Complainant’s ONEWHEEL trademark in
its entirety, with the mere addition of the term “USA” the Respondent has created a domain name that is
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. ...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.
...
2022-03-01 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, do the Complainants have rights in a relevant trademark or trademarks and, second, are the Disputed Domain Names identical or confusingly similar to those trademarks.
...Here, the Disputed Domain Names contain the Complainants’ SANDVIK COROMANT and WALTER Marks in their entirety, and the second Disputed Domain Name contains a dictionary term, and thus, the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the SANDVIK COROMANT and WALTER Marks. It is also well established that a disputed domain name that wholly incorporates a trademark may be confusingly similar to that trademark for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of a hyphen. ...
2021-04-30 - Case Details
When considering whether or not a trademark is identical or confusingly similar to a domain name, the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) (“.com” in this case) may be disregarded.
...The addition of the letter “z” does not prevent the Domain Name being confusingly similar to the CUMMINS trademark.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the CUMMINS trademark for the purposes of the Policy and thus paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been established.
...
2021-06-08 - Case Details
The Panel finds therefore, that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar because it incorporates Complainant’s registered ALLIANZ Mark in its entirety and remains recognizable within the disputed domain name. ...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Complainant contends that because Respondent has created a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALLIANZ Mark, its domain name , as well as its domain name, as found in section 6.A. above, it is implausible to believe that Respondent was not aware of Complainant’s mark when it registered its confusingly similar disputed domain name. ...
2021-08-23 - Case Details