Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is at least confusingly similar to its ALSTOM trademark reproducing it with a deliberate misspelling: a number “0” instead of the letter “o”.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, there are two requirements which the Complainant must establish, first that it has rights in a trademark or service mark, and second that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark.
...
2019-12-17 - Case Details
Complainant contends the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SHELLAC Marks because it incorporates the entirety of the SHELLAC mark and adds the generic terms “nails,” “and,” and “spa”. ...D2006-1351 (recognizing that numerous cases have held that incorporating a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a domain name is confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered mark). The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy in establishing its right in the SHELLAC Marks, and showing that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to this mark.
...
2019-09-13 - Case Details
The Complainants submit that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trademarks for FACEBOOK and INSTAGRAM in jurisdictions throughout the world, including those mentioned under section 4.
...Accordingly, this Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trademarks FACEBOOK and INSTAGRAM, respectively; therefore, this requisite has been satisfied.
...
2019-12-24 - Case Details
In the alternative, the
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its subsidiary’s unregistered
mark BEGGARS MUSIC, with the omission of the letter “s” and the addition of the gTLD “.com”. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2026-04-20 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant argued the following:
I. Identical or Confusingly Similar
That the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ARKEMA trademark.
...That the mere fact that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name which is confusingly similar to
the Complainant’s trademark without authorization is, in and of itself, evidence of its bad faith registration.
...
2024-02-19 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, there are two requirements which the Complainant must establish, first
that it has rights in a trademark or service mark, and second that the disputed domain name is identical or
confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-04-18 - 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. ...In
sum, UDRP panels have found that the registration of a disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to
a well-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can create a presumption of bad faith. ...
2023-01-27 - Case Details
Firstly, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or at least confusingly similar to
the Mark in which the Complainant has rights. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar in that it
wholly incorporates the Mark and only a letter is removed from it. ...page 4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it has registered trademark rights in the Mark.
...
2023-10-30 - Case Details
page 3
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names; and
(iii) the Disputed Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
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. ...Thus, the Panel
concludes that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BREITLING Mark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the
Complainant.
...
2023-07-21 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels found that SODEXO marks are
well-known. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SODEXO
marks as it is composed of the identical sign “Sodexo”, associated with the letters “ab” and the word “group”.
...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.
...
2023-06-16 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, there are two requirements which the complainant must establish, first
that it has rights in a trademark or service mark, and second that the disputed domain name is identical or
confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-11-25 - 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. ...Thus, the Panel concludes that the
Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s TRADER JOE’S Mark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the
Complainant.
...
2022-12-08 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
As set forth in section 1.7 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third
Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) 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. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-12-05 - Case Details
D2024-3761 (finding
confusingly similar to EQUINOR); Carrefour SA v. Sophia, WIPO Case No.
D2024-3088 (finding confusingly similar to CARREFOUR); and Blancpain SA, Omega
SA, Swatch AG v. Dirk Scheidt, hu luo, lewansi, XU euni, Zheng Zheng, WIPO Case No. D2023-5177
(finding confusingly similar to SWATCH).
Finally, “[a] domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is
considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element….
...
2025-05-15 - Case Details
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the HALEON mark in which
the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent lacks a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain
name as it does not have any trademark rights to the term HALEON, “halogen” or any similar term.
...This dispute resolution procedure is accepted by the domain name registrant as a condition of registration.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-11-15 - Case Details
The Complainant
asserts that the Respondent acquired the disputed domain name on September 21, 2023, and that the
Respondent set up a website at the disputed domain name that copies content of the Complainant’s website,
including by using trademarks identical or confusingly similar to the BATALÁ NEW YORK mark and trade
dress and imagery confusingly similar to that used by the Complainant.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-10-08 - 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. ...First, the registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a trademark by an entity that has no
relationship to that mark may be sufficient evidence of opportunistic bad faith. ...
2022-11-21 - 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. ...Thus, the Panel concludes that the Disputed
Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s the OUTFRONT Mark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the
Complainant.
...
2022-07-12 - 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. ...Thus, the Panel concludes that the
Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s INSTAGRAM Mark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the
Complainant.
...
2022-10-19 - Case Details
The Panel will deal with each of the requirements in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the Domain Names are (i) identical or
confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, (ii) in which the Complainant has rights.
...The Panel will deal with each of the requirements in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-03-23 - Case Details