page 5
6. Discussion and Findings
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...
2024-01-23 - 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
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks and the website at the Domain Name features a webcam based interactive user experience similar to that offered by the Complainant. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under the first UDRP element, the Complainant is required to prove that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2018-04-03 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent avers that the disputed domain name is not identical to nor confusingly similar to the marks cited by the Complainant, nor has the domain name been registered or use in bad faith. ...Respondent advises that the domain name was registered with the intent to point it at the California Tire web site.
(1) Identical or Confusingly Similar
Respondent submits that the domain name is not identical to nor confusingly similar to the marks cited by the Complainant. ...
2002-08-21 - Case Details
Due to the extensive use and registration of the MONTBLANC Marks around the world, the MONTBLANC Marks have become famous under the laws of the US and China.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the MONTBLANC Marks because they fully incorporate the MONTBLANC Marks. Also, it is confusingly similar because it consists of the MONTBLANC Marks in their entirety, with the inclusion of the generic term “official,” which intends to give consumers the impression that it is Complainant’s official website.
...Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that a domain name may be identical or confusingly similar to a trademark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trade mark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2013-08-21 - Case Details
A complainant must prove each of these three elements.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant says that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark CMA CGM. ...The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Use of a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a web page containing links to third-party sites, some of which may be operated by competitors of the party having rights in the mark to which the Domain Name is confusingly similar, cannot, on the face of it, provide any rights or legitimate interests for the owner of the Domain Name.
...
2016-07-27 - 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 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 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
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 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
Sell, supply, offer or expose for sale or supply or advertise the provision of motor vehicle tyres and tyre fitting services under or by reference to National Tyres or any other mark confusingly similar.
b. Otherwise pass off or enable, assist or procure others to pass off our business as and for your business by reference to the mark National Tyres or any other mark confusingly similar.
2. ...Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the marks NATIONAL TYRES AND AUTOCARE, NATIONAL, NATIONAL TYRE SERVICE and NATIONAL TYRES in which it has rights.
...
2014-11-12 - 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
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
Even in cases where the respondent is in default, to justify the transfer of the disputed domain name the complainant must establish each of the three elements required by paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To satisfy the first UDRP element, the disputed domain name must be identical or confusingly similar to a trademark, in which the Complainant has rights. ...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the MOMONDO trademark in which the Complainant has rights, and that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in relation to the disputed domain name.
...
2015-05-19 - Case Details
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
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