Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trade Mark. ...Accordingly, the Panel declines to accept the supplemental filing.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.
...
2017-08-01 - 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...
2025-12-09 - 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. The Panel concludes that in the present case, the Disputed
Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SACHEU Mark.
It is well accepted that the f irst element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2025-09-12 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(i) Identical of confusingly similar
Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to trademarks in which it has rights. ...Complainant contends that a domain name that consists of an obvious or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered confusingly similar to that mark, and an example of this is the substitution of similar characters, as in this case. ...
2021-07-13 - 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 first contends that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith because Respondent has created a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s famous BLANTON’S Mark, as found in section 6A above. Prior UDRP panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a widely known or famous trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. ...
2021-11-08 - Case Details
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/#item411
page 4
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. ...It can be inferred that the Respondent had actual
knowledge of the Complainants and the META, OCULUS and QUEST Marks when it registered the
confusingly similar Disputed Domain Names. 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. ...
2023-03-13 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the owner of the registered trademark “ACCUTANE”. Previous panels have held that a trademark registration with a national trademark authority is sufficient to establish rights in a complainant’s mark under Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). ...Stellar Artist Mgmt., NAF Claim No. 95650 (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith use and registration by using domain names that were identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to redirect users to a website that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant).
...
2013-01-31 - Case Details
The Trading Force Limited,
WIPO Case No. D2002-1038.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names [xn--sahbinden-xpb.com] and [xn--sahibnden-zpb.com] are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
...The question to be answered is not whether the web sites operated by the parties are confusingly similar. The decisive question is whether the disputed domain names on the one hand are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks on the other hand. ...
2011-01-20 - Case Details
The disputed domain names, , , and are identical or confusingly similar to the respective service marks, BABSON COLLEGE, BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY, TUFTS, and UVM. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has presented the Panel with ample evidence (Complaint, Annex 4) of its USPTO service mark registrations for the marks, BABSON COLLEGE, BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY, TUFTS and UVM. ...
2012-08-03 - Case Details
Thus, the
incorporation of such term appended with the suggestive term “cloth” makes the Domain Name confusingly
similar to the Trademark.
Respondent’s use of the Domain Name contributes to the confusion. ...This suggests that Respondent intended the Domain Name to be confusingly
similar to the Trademark as a means of furthering consumer confusion.
The Domain Name is therefore confusingly similar to Complainant’s Trademark.
...
2023-07-10 - 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
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith...
2024-01-26 - 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
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-11-05 - Case Details
It is therefore submitted that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark EMI.
The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use its trademark. ...For all the above reasons, the Panel concludes here that the domain name in issue is confusingly similar to the trademark EMI in which the Complainant has rights.
The Panel would anyway have concluded that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark Thorn EMI which the Complainant owns. ...
2008-01-31 - Case Details
The domain name is, in the judgment of the Panel, confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks. The addition of the sucks does nothing to deflect the impact of the mark on the Internet user.
...Thus this Panel member agrees that the Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks.
The Complainant must show that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. ...
2001-04-26 - Case Details
The word "Land" creates a
similar impression and the Coca-ColaLand.com domain also is confusingly similar
to Complainant’s "Coca-Cola" mark and domain name. ...The second requirement is that the domain name be identical or confusingly
similar to the marks. I conclude that the domain names are all confusingly similar
to the Complainant’s marks. ...
2001-08-03 - Case Details
The Complainant argues that the contested domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s "Complexions RX" mark, in which the Respondent has no prior rights. ...They will be examined in turn below.
a. Identical or confusingly similar
The domain name at issue is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark "Complexions RX" and its earlier-registered domain name, . ...
2002-07-30 - Case Details
D2000-0273 (June 14, 2000) (finding that using confusingly
similar domain names to redirect web users away from Complainant's website to
be evidence of bad faith).
...Identity or Confusing Similarity
Complainant further contends that the Domain Names are identical with and confusingly similar to the Mark pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
Respondents have not contested the assertions by Complaint that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the trademark.
...
2003-12-11 - Case Details
Identity or Confusing Similarity
Complainants further contend that the Domain Names are identical with and confusingly similar to the Marks pursuant to the Policy, Paragraph 4(a)(i).
Complainants argue that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Marks, pursuant to Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, because they wholly incorporate the Marks with minor variations in spellings.
Respondents have not contested the assertions by Complainants that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Marks.
As numerous courts and prior UDRP panels have recognized, the incorporation
of a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a domain name
is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered mark. ...
2004-03-09 - Case Details
D2005-1190 in which the panel said that typosquatting “has consistently been regarded as creating domain names that are confusingly similar to the relevant mark”. Accordingly, the Complainant says that each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to its GROUPON trade mark.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first issue which requires consideration is whether the Complainant has, as it maintains, rights in the trade mark GROUPON. ...
2014-11-21 - 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.
...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. ...
2025-03-10 - Case Details