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
The Complainant has properly asserted its rights in the BVLGARI Trademark due to the long use and
registrations worldwide.
...In light of the above, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s BVLGARI Trademark and that the Complainant has established the first condition of
paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2023-06-09 - 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 DAVIS POLK
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 relevant rights in a trademark and the disputed domain
name must be identical or confusingly similar to such trademark.
...
2024-01-29 - 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...
2024-05-22 - 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
Accordingly, these disputed domain names are confusingly similar to all
of the Complainant’s marks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-11-12 - 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 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
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
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
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
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
The gTLD is a standard registration requirement and as such is to be disregarded for the purposes of determining whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark.
Where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or a dominant feature of the mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the BELFIUS Mark for the purposes of the Policy and thus paragraph 4(a)(i) thereof has been established.
...
2021-02-11 - 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 ROTHSCHILD 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.
...
2020-08-20 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights over the trademark DREAM MARRIAGE based on the trademark registration cited under section 4 above and the related trademark certificate submitted as annex 4 to the Complaint.
...In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademark DREAM MARRIAGE in which the Complainant has established rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2020-08-19 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has registered a large number of trademarks for PANAVISION throughout the world as evidenced by the Complaint.
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the registered and famous PANAVISION mark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. ...
2005-08-12 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
For the purpose of considering whether the disputed domain name is identical or similar to the Complainants’ trade marks, the generic Top-Level Domains (“gTLDs”) “.com”, “.net”, and “.org” are disregarded as these are technical requirements of registration.
...The Respondents evidently registered each of these disputed domain names because they believed they were confusingly similar to one or more of the Complainants’ trade marks. Accordingly, the “vlc” and “vlk” component of these disputed domain names are found to be confusingly similar to the Complainants’ VULKAN trade mark.
...
2019-08-14 - 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 that trademark. ...D2004-0117 (a domain name incorporating a well-known trademark combined with a geographically descriptive term is confusingly similar to the trademark); Inter-IKEA Systems B.V. v. Hoon Huh,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0438 (the addition of the term “korea” in does not prevent the domain name from being confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark).
...
2021-09-20 - Case Details