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. 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
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 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
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
The domain name which differs by only one letter from a trade mark
has a greater tendency to be confusingly similar to the trade mark where the
trade mark is highly distinctive. In the absence of any argument to the contrary
from the Respondent, this administrative panel concludes that on balance, domain
names (2)-(4) are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark."
...D2000-0587, (August
10, 2000), "‘typosquatting,’ is a practice that has been condemned and
been found to be confusingly similar to the marks which they mimic."
In light of the above, the Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks "EXPEDIA" and "EXPEDIA.COM" in which Complainant has rights. ...
2003-11-10 - Case Details
In addition,
the Panel agrees with the Complainant’s submission that a domain name
is confusingly similar to a well known trademark when it merely consists of
the trademark and the name of a country, in this case Australia. ...D2004-0958, where the domain name was
held to be confusingly similar to the PFIZER mark and was transferred to Complainant.
On the basis of these considerations, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2005-11-11 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that:
The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's THE CARLYLE GROUP trademark
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to both the Complainant's THE CARLYLE GROUP registered trademark and the designation “Carlyle” which it claims to have unregistered trademark rights to.
...The onus of proving these elements is on the complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element, the Complainant must have rights in a trademark or service mark, and the disputed domain name must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark or service mark.
...
2009-03-17 - Case Details
The disputed Domain Name is thus confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark LEGO. The fame of the trademark has been confirmed in numerous previous UDRP decisions. ...As numerous prior UDRP panels have recognized, the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety in a domain name may be sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered mark. The addition of other generic terms in a domain name does not affect a finding that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered trademark (Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. v. ...
2014-12-10 - 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. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-11-16 - Case Details
A brief summary of the Complainant’s contentions is set out below.
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to trademarks or service marks in which the Complainant has rights.
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to its trademarks, differing only by the addition of the dictionary word
“help”. ...There is no active use at all and a passive holding of a
confusingly similar domain name cannot establish rights or legitimate interests in the circumstances of this case.
...
2025-09-08 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the f irst element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The Panel also f inds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
CARREFOUR mark. Where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, the domain name will
normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing. ...
2025-06-30 - Case Details
One must do a lot of research to avoid being
“confusingly similar” to those brands, and sometimes this is more of an art than a science due to the short
length. ...Supplemental Submissions
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-08-13 - Case Details
Complainant submits that the Domain Name is nearly identical and confusingly similar to the SPINCASINO marks, as it consists from the words “spin” and “casino”, with the addition of the descriptive word “group”. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated that it has well-established rights in its SPINCASINO trademark, both through registration and widespread use around the world. ...
2021-12-30 - Case Details
In the Panel’s view, the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks registered in the USA, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and other countries, i.e. ...The Court there was dealing with domain names identical or confusingly similar to registered trademarks where the domain name holders had tried to sell the names to the trademark owners. ...
2000-08-17 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element the Complainant must have trade or service mark rights, and the disputed domain names must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade or service mark.
...It is possible that the Complainant has unregistered common law trade mark rights in “enomcentral”, and the disputed domain name would certainly be confusingly similar to that mark, however it is unnecessary to explore this point further as the Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark.
...
2008-02-19 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), the Complainant shall prove that the Disputed Domain Name is
identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...Therefore, the Panel holds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademark and that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2023-09-28 - Case Details
page 3
Therefore, according to Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with Complainant’s
trademark CI CERESIO INVESTORS, fulfilling paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy and paragraphs 3(b)(viii) and
3(b)(ix)(1) of the Rules.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-01-11 - 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...
2024-02-14 - Case Details