The Complainant contends that where a domain name consists of a common, obvious or intentional misspelling of a trademark, the domain name is considered to be confusingly similar for the purposes of the first element. The Complainant requests that the Panel finds the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(i).
...Previous UDRP panels have consistently held 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” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2022-01-12 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant submits;
i. The disputed domain name is identical/confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark SOUTHORD;
ii. There is no evidence that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain
name;
iii. ...It submits that the creation of the confusingly similar website would have been done
with the intention that a substantial number of visitors to the Respondent’s website would be confused in to
believing that it belonged to or had been approved by the Complainant.
...
2022-12-22 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark as it incorporates the term “merc”, which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. ...Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant and that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2019-07-16 - Case Details
Respondent's domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's UNISYS mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.
3. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established its rights in the UNISYS mark through registration with the U.S. ...
2004-04-23 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element contains two parts: first, does Complainant have rights in a relevant mark and, second, are the Domain Names identical or confusingly similar to that mark.
...D2001-0110
(April 2, 2001) (finding confusingly similar to ANSELL
for condoms); Arthur Guinness Son & Co. v. Steel Vertigogo, WIPO
Case No. ...
2005-03-08 - Case Details
D2000-0441 (July 13, 2000) ( confusingly
similar to REUTERS);
InfoSpace.com, Inc. v. Registrar Administrator
Lew Blanck, WIPO Case No. ...Like our colleagues, this Panel concludes that is confusingly similar to the trademark SCANIA. It is confusingly similar for two reasons. First, “www” is the well-known acronym for “world wide web” and thus had no distinguishing capacity in a domain name context. ...
2005-08-18 - 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
Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the first element of the Policy has been established.
...
2025-07-09 - Case Details
He says the acronym "vrsn" stands for "Voter Registration Service Network"; and
2) The vrsn domain names are not confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks because Complainant has no marks for vrsn. The vrsn domain names are not confusingly similar to the trademark verisign or the stylized V. ...The Identity or Confusing Similarity of the Domain Name with the Trademark or Service Mark (§ 4(a)(I))
In order to decide whether the vrsn domain names are confusingly similar to VeriSign, the first question is what is the standard to be applied as to whether or not something is confusingly similar.
...
2001-03-16 - Case Details
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar because it “only differs from [it’s] registered mark by the replacement of the letter ‘t’ with the visually similar letter ‘l’”. ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the VISTRA trademark. The Complainant has met the first element of the Policy.
B. ...
2019-01-04 - Case Details
The first disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s AFFLELOU trade mark as it reproduces it in its entirety and just adds a final “s”. ...For the purpose of determining whether the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to its mark, the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.net” is generally disregarded as this is a technical requirement of registration.
...
2021-02-11 - Case Details
In addition, those domain names are all phonetically similar to the Complainant's mark, and are visually similar. These similarities strongly support a finding that these ten domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark. ...There are a substantial number of panel decisions
which have found that such domain names are confusingly similar to the marks
which they misspell. (For a recent example, see Yurtici Kargo Servisi A.S.
...
2004-03-16 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name consists of a marginal misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark SIMON AND SCHUSTER and the suffix “.com”. ...Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is at least confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark rights.
For the same reasons, the Panel concludes here that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark.
...
2008-04-14 - Case Details
Complainant
The following is summarised from the Complaint.
Identical or confusingly similar
Both the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark, “ROHDE & SCHWARZ”. ...As noted above, the Respondent has registered domain names that are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark.
The registration of two such domain names, which are
both similar, is an unlikely coincidence. ...
2006-08-30 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the ACTARIS trademark. The Complainant’s U.S.
...Accordingly the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademark and hence the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...
2022-08-17 - Case Details
Domain
Names consisting of a trademark and generic words are in general confusingly
similar to the trademark (Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1409, in which nineteen
Domain Names consisting of a trademark with appended ordinary words were transferred).
6.8.The Panel finds the disputed Domain Names
and to be confusingly similar to Complainant's
trademarks in terms of Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
6.9.The same considerations do not apply to the disputed Domain Names
and . Complainant posits
that these two Domain Names are confusingly similar to its trademarks
CAESARS and CAESARS PALACE. They rhyme in a simplistic way. However, the
narrow question to be decided is whether they are confusingly similar
to Complainant's trademarks. ...
2002-04-24 - Case Details
Prior WIPO UDRP 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 the 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).
...
2010-09-20 - 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 prove that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which Complainant has rights.
...The purposeful misspelling of Complainant’s trademark XENICAL results in a confusingly similar domain name under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See Wachovia Corporation v. Peter Carrington,
WIPO Case No. ...
2010-11-02 - Case Details
Complainants argue that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainants’ well-known SOFITEL mark because the disputed domain name fully incorporates the SOFITEL mark. ...C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The inclusion of the entire SOFITEL mark within the disputed domain name militates strongly against Respondent. ...
2013-11-19 - 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. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-04-21 - Case Details
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. ...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Complainant contends that because Respondent has created a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHEMOURS Mark, as well as its domain, as found in section 6A above it is implausible to believe that Respondent did not have actual knowledge of Complainant’s widely known, globally used mark when it registered its confusingly similar domain name. ...
2022-01-28 - Case Details