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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
page 4
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...
2026-11-11 - 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
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
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
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 domain name is identical
or confusingly similar to that trademark. ...It can be inferred that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant
and its VERKADA Mark when it registered the confusingly similar disputed domain name. 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. ...
2022-04-06 - 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 domain name is identical
or confusingly similar to that trademark. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant.
...
2022-04-29 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in the Complainant’s Trademark, based on its various
trademark registrations listed above in Section 4.
...As such, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
Trademark, and accordingly, paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2022-07-29 - Case Details