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
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
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
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 Disputed Domain Name is
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s VFS GLOBAL Mark.
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?...
2023-01-11 - 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
The Complainant continues that the Respondent has created the Disputed Domain Name which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MANULIFE trademark and also its domain name . ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has established rights in its trademark MANULIFE. ...
2021-05-07 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the CITRIX trademark. The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to this trademark. Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2021-04-06 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CALIBER HOME LOANS trademark.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has established rights in its trademark CALIBER HOME LOANS. ...
2021-10-15 - 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
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the HEETS trademark. The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to this trademark.
...Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2021-11-17 - 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
Michael Robertson,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0009).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel agrees with Complainant’s allegation that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s EQUIFAX mark.
...WIPO
Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section
1.9 (UDRP panels consider domain names which consist of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of
a trademark are considered to be confusingly similar).
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
...
2023-01-20 - 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
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
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
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
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
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