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 PLUGPLAY Mark as explained below.
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2025-06-11 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant must establish that it has a trademark or service mark and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark or service mark for the Complainant to succeed.
...The Respondent has registered the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known trademark. UDRP panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. ...
2021-05-31 - Case Details
Complainant further contends that the Domain Name is identical with and confusingly similar to the CELLULARONE and CELLONE marks and the variants contained in the Trademarks pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
...At least one panel of arbitrators from this forum has in the past found confusing similarity in a situation remarkably similar to the present one. See Nike, Inc. v. Farrukh Zia, WIPO Case No. D2000-0167 (holding "enike.com" and "e-nike.com" to be confusingly similar to Complainant Nike, Inc.'...
2000-12-27 - Case Details
D2000-1259 (finding , , , and to be confusingly similar to complainants’ trade and service marks).
In short, it is evident that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s widely known registered mark NATIONAL EXPRESS, and is a close typographical variant of Complainant’s own domain name. For this reason, the Panel concludes that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Respondent’s NATIONAL EXPRESS mark, a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
...
2008-03-31 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant has established trademark rights in relation to the mark FENDI.
...As a consequence, the Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark FENDI owned by the Complainant. Therefore, the Panel considers that the condition set out by Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been met.
...
2007-03-12 - Case Details
The Respondent, having failed to respond in these proceedings is in default, and the Panel shall draw inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate.
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.
...Therefore, the use of the gTLD “biz” in the disputed domain name is not germane to the determination of whether that domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered mark.
In the light of the foregoing, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered mark and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2009-10-14 - Case Details
The Respondent, having failed to respond in these proceedings is in default, and the panel shall draw such appropriate inferences therefrom.
A. Identical or confusingly similar
To prove this element, the Complainant must have trademark rights and the disputed domain names must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.
...Therefore, the use of the gTLD “info” in the disputed domain names is not germane to the determination of whether that domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered mark.
In the light of the foregoing, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered mark and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2009-10-12 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires two elements to be proved, namely that (i) the Respondent's domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, (ii) in which the Complainant has rights.
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark QUIKSILVER.
The other element to prove is that Complainant has rights in the trademark. ...
2009-02-03 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent’s contentions are as follows.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Disputed Domain Names are not confusingly similar to the Trade Marks.
The Complainant does not have any trade mark registrations or pending registrations relating to the Disputed Domain Names (i.e., for “geigo” or “giego”).
...Accordingly, the Panel declines to accept the supplementary submissions as part of the record in this proceeding.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Marks.
...
2012-10-04 - Case Details
Thus, the Community trademark registration is identical or at least confusingly similar to the Domain Name.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, a complainant must prove that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which complainant has rights.
...
2011-09-07 - Case Details
In particular, in its Complaint filed in October 2010, the Complainant asserts that:
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar or identical to the CANALSAT trademark in the light of the fact that it incorporates its trademark in its entirety in the domain name. ...The Respondent has failed to file a formal reply in these proceedings and is therefore in default and the Panel shall draw such appropriate inferences therefrom.
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.
...
2010-12-22 - Case Details
Prior WIPO UDRP panels have recognized that the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety may be sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered mark. AT&T Corp. v. William Gormally,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0758 (finding confusingly similar to ATT); Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. ...D2007-1288 (finding and confusingly similar to EARTHLINK); Microsoft Corporation v. MindKind,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0193 (finding confusingly similar to MICROSOFT).
...
2010-03-15 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...The result is that the Complainant has shown that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant had shown that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2010-05-05 - Case Details
Translation of the Complaint and other materials would cause unnecessary expense and delay.
B. 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.
...It is well established that a domain name is confusingly similar to a mark "when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation". ...
2014-12-03 - Case Details
Complainant
5.1 The Complainant contends that the disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks in that the disputed Domain Name exactly reproduces the Complainant’s trademark INTESA SAN PAOLO with the addition of the letter “s” in the first component “intesa”. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.3 The Panel finds from the unchallenged facts, and without any hesitation, that the disputed Domain Name, is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s globally known trademark INTESA SANPAOLO in the banking and financial sector. ...
2012-10-29 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark IG INDEX. The only difference being that the letter “i” comes after the letter “n”. ...The same thinking is carried over into decisions under the Policy because the words “Identical or confusingly similar” appear in paragraph 4(a)(i) thereof. The comparison in the present case is between the trademark IG INDEX and the expression “ignidex”. ...
2012-12-13 - Case Details
Complainant
The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s Trademarks
According to Complainant, the Domain Name incorporates its trademark SUPERSHUTTLE entirely, adding only the country code Top Level Domain “.nl”. ...B. Respondent
The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s Trademarks
Respondent operates its business under the trade names “Supershuttle” and “Supershuttle Schiphol Services”.
...
2013-01-11 - Case Details
The addition of other terms in the domain name does not affect a finding that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to complainant’s registered trademark. It is important to note that in this case the direct translation of Complainant’s mark in Spanish does not preclude a finding of the Disputed Domain Name being confusingly similar to that mark.
Respondent has not contested the assertions by Complainant that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SPONGEBOB Marks.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SPONGEBOB Marks pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2010-10-18 - Case Details
Complainant
5.1 The Complainant asserts that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s INTERSYSTEMS trademark and the Complainant’s domain name associated with the trademark in that the Disputed Domain Name merely omits the letter “e” from the term “intersystems”. ...The Complainant further argues that a domain name that merely omits one letter or makes similar small changes to a registered trade mark is confusingly similar to the mark following a number of previous UDRP decisions including for instance, Media West-LCJ, Inc., Gannet Kentucky Limited Partnership, Gannett, Co, Inc. v. ...
2017-09-18 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
(i) Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant contends the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its GREENVELOPE trademark. ...Respondent's failure to file a response does not automatically result in a decision in favor of Complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel must first determine whether the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. ...
2017-03-03 - Case Details