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
The Complainant cited previous UDRP WIPO Panels’ decisions in which the panel has found domain names neglecting the period after the “www” prefix as well as misspelling the mark are confusingly similar to the asserted mark. The Panel has also held that domain names only typing a “ww” prefix are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. ...In addition, the Complainant also argues that the Courts have consistently recognized as “confusingly similar” the use of terms that are spelled only slightly differently than well-established marks. ...
2007-05-24 - 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
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark and, second, is the Disputed Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
...The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is nearly identical, or if not identical, is confusingly similar to the Complainant's AMSCOT Mark. The words "cash advance" in the Disputed Domain Name are descriptive and indicate that the website provides cash advances and other similar financial services. ...
2014-12-29 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence adduced by Complainant as noted above, this Panel has no hesitation in finding that Complainant has rights in the ACCUTANE mark and the other similar related marks cited by Complainant. ...D2016-0672 (where the panel found to be confusingly similar to the ACCUTANE mark) and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Marina Kovtun,
WIPO Case No. D2016-0852 ( found to be confusingly similar to the ACCUTANE mark).
...
2016-10-25 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: First, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark and, second, is the Disputed Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
...It is well established that a domain name that wholly incorporates a trademark may be confusingly similar to that trademark for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of a descriptive or generic word. ...
2016-09-01 - Case Details
c) That the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Two separate issues fall for consideration. Does the Complainant have rights in the marks and is the disputed domain name identical or confusingly similar to any such marks. ...The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its mark for the following reasons:
(a) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the dominant name in the Complainant’s trademarks.
...
2015-06-25 - Case Details
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
As indicated in section 5B above, there is no dispute between the parties that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's EASYDATE registered trade mark; nor could there be. ...The Panel has found on the balance of probabilities that the Respondent registered the Domain Name knowing it to be confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark in use in the same line of business and with a view to attracting visitors to its website.
...
2016-01-26 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trademark ACCUTANE and to its registered trademarks ROACCUTAN and ROACCUTANE.
...The Respondent is therefore using a domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark to attract visitors to a website on which it also offers other, third-party pharmaceutical products for sale. ...
2016-01-19 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
1. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for the mark AIRTEL for telecommunications-related goods and services in many jurisdictions.
...Complainant also argues that the domain name is confusingly similar to the AIRTEL mark.
As a general matter, a domain name is likely to be deemed to be confusingly similar to a mark if it incorporates the mark or a variation or dominant portion of the mark; however, such a finding is not automatic. 1 Here, the domain name does incorporate the AIRTEL mark in its entirety. ...
2015-12-18 - Case Details
The dominant part of the Domain Name is identical or very similar to the ZIONS Marks. Accordingly, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Marks. The additional word “email” only exacerbates the confusing similarity and is not distinguishing because it alludes to emails that Complainant could send. ...The Domain Name, , wholly incorporates the ZIONS DIRECT Mark thus it is confusingly similar to that Mark. Adding “email-” to the ZIONS DIRECT Mark does not diminish the confusing similarity with the Domain Name. ...
2017-07-03 - Case Details
The generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com" does not affect the assessment that a domain name is confusingly similar to a particular trade mark. The non-distinctive addition "China", "cn", "1" and "2" to the Disputed Domain Names cannot change the fact that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar with the BHP trademarks.
...The Respondent's registration of domain names that are confusingly similar to the Complainant's well-known BHP trademark constitutes registrations in bad faith.
...
2017-05-22 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant makes the following submissions.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark as it features all elements of the Trade Mark, with the exception of the letter “o” replacing the letter “a”. ...However, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s default.
A. 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.
...
2017-11-16 - 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...
2025-01-22 - Case Details
Moreover, the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP
Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) and, where appropriate, will decide consistent with the
consensus views captured therein.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it should be established that the disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-08-05 - Case Details
Moreover, the disputed domain name is also confusingly similar to the trade mark BOURSORAMA
BANQUES of the Complainant, which is reproduced nearly identically. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-02-01 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar or identical to the Complainant’s trademark with the only adjunction of the “.com” extension.
...Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark B&B HOTELS.
The standing test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the trademark and the disputed domain name to determine whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the trademark. ...
2021-10-21 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it has well-established rights in its well-known MICHELIN
trademarks. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-02-08 - Case Details
Considering these requirements, the Panel rules as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain names are
identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...The Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark and
the Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2023-03-20 - Case Details
iii) That the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its mark for the following reasons:
(a) The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the dominant portion of the Complainant’s mark BARCLAYS.
...c) The Domain Name adds a non-distinctive suffix and is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel accepts the Complainant’s contentions. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. ...
2012-08-17 - Case Details