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.
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.
...In light of the foregoing, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2013-06-19 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-02-16 - Case Details
Complainant asserts the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the FIDELITY Marks. Complainant asserts the only distinctive element in the disputed domain name is “FIDEL” which is clearly recognizable and similar to the full FIDELITY trademark. ...In Knot We Trust LTD,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0340.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Ownership of a trademark registration is generally sufficient evidence that a complainant has the requisite rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...
2019-08-16 - Case Details
In conclusion, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which
Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-01-19 - Case Details
I have
provided all the details.”
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...I have provided all the details.”
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-10-02 - Case Details
D2000‑0127, and that “Panelists have consistently held that the mere addition of descriptive wording to well‑known marks or confusingly similar derivatives thereof, does not avert a finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar” and “the descriptive or generic wording to a trademark owned by a complainant to create a domain name consisting of multiple words that implies a relationship between the words can and in this case actually increase rather than decrease the confusing similarity”. ...The Respondent still stated that he “had nothing to do with this and will not accept any findings or rulings”.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has clearly shown that it is the owner of the registered SANOFI Trademarks.
...
2017-04-10 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is therefore identical or
confusingly similar to the PRESERVISION mark.
The addition of the descriptive term “bio” does not prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly
similar to Complainant’s PRESERVISION trademark. ...Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-03-12 - 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...
2026-04-07 - Case Details
The Complainant asserts that a domain name which is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or widely
known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can of itself create presumption of bad faith. ...International Electronic Communications Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s THERMOMIX
mark, in which the Complainant has established rights through registration and long use. ...
2022-11-07 - Case Details
Considering the above the Panel finds the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s trademark, therefore, the Complainant has established its case under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the
Policy.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-09-06 - Case Details
The Domain Name is a purposeful misspelling of
the Complainant’s ALLY BANK trademark and must be considered confusingly similar. It is also aurally and
visually confusingly similar.
As the Domain Name differs from the Complainant’s trademark by the addition of just one letter, the Domain
Name should be considered a typical example of typosquatting.
...A complainant must prove
each of these three elements to succeed.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the registered owner of the ALLY BANK and ALLY trademarks and clearly has rights for
the purposes of the Policy.
...
2022-03-30 - Case Details
Section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 says that inclusion of an entire trademark in a domain name will be
considered confusingly similar. Section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 instructs that a domain name which
consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by UDRP panels to
be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-03-28 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant contends to be the owner of the trademark FACEBOOK in several jurisdictions, since at least 2006.
...Hence, the inclusion of the “.com” gTLD, in the disputed domain name is not a factor in analyzing whether a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark in which Complainant asserts rights.
Furthermore, the Panel considers that the reproduction of the trademark FACEBOOK, by the disputed domain name is sufficient ground to establish that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark. ...
2022-02-21 - Case Details
As discussed in
section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a
trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the
domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the RÉMY COINTREAU
Trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...Discussion and Findings
6.1 Procedural issue - Language of the proceeding
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-12-07 - Case Details
Complainant
The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant
has rights.
The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MILLIMAN mark. ...page 3
The addition of a typo-variant of the generic word “benefits” does not prevent the Domain Name from being
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MILLIMAN mark. It is well established that the mere addition of a
generic and/or descriptive word does not prevent a domain name from being confusingly similar to a trademark.
...
2022-10-26 - Case Details
D2008-1302 ( omission of “s” constitutes typosquatting which is by definition evidence of a confusingly similar domain name). The addition of the TLD “.com” is irrelevant in determining whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar. ...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 the complainant’s trademark, that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and that the 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. ...
2021-12-08 - Case Details
Complainant contends the Domain Name, containing the letters “arh4rent”, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it comprises the same letters as Complainant’s AH4R trademark. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated that it has well-established rights in its AH4R trademarks, through registration and use. ...
2021-11-24 - Case Details
These elements are discussed as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is nearly identical and is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark. ...D2001-0063 (use of confusingly similar domain name by competitor of Complainant constituted bad faith registration and use).
...
2012-01-26 - Case Details
Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the REVLON mark. The Disputed Domain Name, however, is not identical to the REVLON mark. ...This Panel agrees that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the REVLON mark. Several previous UDRP panels have held that incorporating a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. ...
2012-02-01 - Case Details
In particular, in its Complaint filed on November 21, 2012, the Complainant asserts that:
-The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar or identical to the Complainant’s registered AAA Marks, in light of the fact that it wholly incorporates the Complainant’s Marks. ...The Respondent has failed to file a formal response in these proceedings and is therefore in default and the Panel may draw appropriate inferences therefrom.
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.
...
2013-02-07 - Case Details