Complainant further alleges that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the ANECDOTE Mark and incorporates the critical element "ANECDOTE" in its entirety. ...The addition of "k" in the Disputed Domain Name does not affect a finding that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's ANECDOTE Mark.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the ANECDOTE Mark pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2017-02-14 - Case Details
Incorporation of a trademark of a complainant in its entirety or a deceptively similar variation is
sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that mark.
...Given the omission of the
letter “s”, the Domain Name and mark cannot be said to be identical, but the Domain Name is certainly
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CITIUSTECH trademark.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the CITIUSTECH trademark for the purposes of
the Policy and thus paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been established.
...
2022-12-13 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant asserts registered rights in the SCRIBD trademark. The Complainant submits that the
disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the SCRIBD trademark.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under the first element, the Complainant must establish that the disputed domain name is identical with, or
confusingly similar to, the Complainant’s trademark rights.
...
2023-03-21 - Case Details
Complainant’s Blue Marks and BCBS mark have
been extensively used, advertised and promoted throughout the United States
in connection with Complainant, its Member Plans and licensees, and their services.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Confusingly similar
Each of Respondent’s domain names is either identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s Blue Marks and BCBS mark.
...The above-mentioned domain names are also confusingly similar to 13 other domain names used by Complainant’s Member Plans, which includes abbreviations to 13 of the states mentioned.
...
2005-04-11 - Case Details
The addition of other terms in the domain name does not affect a finding that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered Marks.
We must first determine whether the domain name at issue is identical or confusingly similar to the Marks in which Complainant has rights. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Marks in which the Complainant has rights. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the HARD ROCK Marks pursuant to the Policy Paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2007-06-22 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant is the owner of the trademark MARLBORO both by registration and acquired reputation and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark MARLBORO.
...Thus, there is no basis for the Respondent to claim that that the use of a confusingly similar domain name could somehow be legitimate.
The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, has been satisfied.
...
2015-01-08 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the PLAYSTATION mark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, and that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. ...The Respondent’s bad faith is reflected in the fact that: (1) the Respondent redirected web traffic from the Domain Name to one of the Complainant’s chief competitors; (2) the Respondent uses a confusingly similar domain name; and (3) nothing in the record suggests that the Respondent has a bona fide reason for its choice of a domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade marks.
...
2014-12-16 - Case Details
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name reproduces the trademark VALIUM and is confusingly similar to the domain names previously registered by the Complainant.
The Complainant adds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark seeing that it incorporates the international non-proprietary term "diazepam" and Complainant's trademark VALIUM.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has been able to demonstrate that it has rights to the trademark VALIUM (Annex 3 to the Complaint).
...
2015-01-28 - Case Details
Complainant
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant and its CARREFOUR trademarks enjoy a worldwide reputation. ...The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark as the disputed domain name incorporates the CARREFOUR trademark in its entirety. ...
2014-09-03 - Case Details
D2012-1395, where the domain name was held to be confusingly similar to the KAREN MILLEN trademark; Belstaff S.R.L. v. Jason Lau, Sharing,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0783, where the domain name was held to be confusingly similar to the BELSTAFF trademark; Lime Wire LLC v. ...D2005-0890, where the domain name was held to be confusingly similar to the trademark PORSCHE).
Accordingly, Complainant has made out the first of the three elements that it must establish.
...
2014-09-02 - Case Details
In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, if the Respondent does not submit a Response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute based upon the Complaint.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark and, second, is the disputed domain name identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
...Numerous UDRP panels have held that a domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark where, as in this case, the domain name incorporates the trademark in its entirety. ...
2014-07-10 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark and, second, is the Disputed Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
...Second, the Respondent's registration of the Disputed Domain Name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks is sufficient evidence of bad faith registration and use. ...
2015-08-18 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has submitted detailed evidence that it is the owner of numerous trademarks consisting of the words "LA Fitness" or "L.A. ...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. ...
2017-01-11 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark or trademarks and, second, is the Disputed Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to those trademarks.
...Second, the registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a trademark by an entity that has no relationship to that mark may be sufficient evidence of opportunistic bad faith. ...
2016-12-09 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a
transfer of the Disputed Domain Name.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has set out that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a
trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...page 4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2026-08-24 - Case Details
First, the Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the
BROYHILL Marks in which the Complainant has rights. The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the
entirety of the BROYHILL Marks. ...The generic Top-
Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.biz” is typically disregarded in the confusingly similarity test. WIPO Overview 3.1,
section 1.11.
Accordingly, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the BROYHILL Marks for the purposes of
the Policy. ...
2026-05-20 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the FINE’RY trademark. The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is
confusingly similar to this 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. ...
2025-09-04 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first order of business for the Complainant is to show that it has trademark rights in the letters “ibm” and
the word “think”. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-02-11 - Case Details
In this sense, the disputed domain name
would be confusingly similar to Complainants’ trademarks RÖDL, ROEDL, RODL & PARTNER, RÖDL &
PARTNER and ROEDL & PARTNER.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-01-27 - 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
7. Decision...
2025-11-28 - Case Details