Complainant
The Complainant states that it is the owner of the trademark NATWEST. The disputed domain name is clearly confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered trademark NATWEST. The addition of the suffixes "s" and "uk" does not detract from the overall impression of association with the Complainant, and the disputed domain name must therefore be considered to be confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has been able to demonstrate that it has rights to the trademark NATWEST (Annex 7 to the Complaint).
...
2014-11-03 - 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, are the Disputed Domain Names identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
...Second, the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Names that are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known trademark is sufficient evidence of bad faith registration and use. ...
2015-06-08 - Case Details
The Domain Name incorporates the SAP mark and is confusingly similar to it. The addition of the term “sd‑certification” does not provide a point of differentiation. ...A complainant must prove each of these three elements to succeed.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant clearly has rights in the SAP trademark for the purposes of the Policy.
...
2017-02-09 - 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...
2025-09-01 - Case Details
Respondent did not reply to
Complainants’ contentions, but rather mentioned that the “account was deleted”.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel must first determine whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a
trademark or service mark in which Complainants have rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the
Policy. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel must first determine whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainants have rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...
2022-09-05 - 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 or Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-07-25 - Case Details
Michael Robertson,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0009).
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel agrees with Complainant’s allegation that the disputed domain name is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s KIMLEY-HORN marks.
...The Panel therefore rules that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks. See
WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, section 1.7 (“WIPO
Overview 3.0”) (UDRP panels often determine that disputed domain names are confusingly similar to a
complainant’s marks where the disputed domain names fully incorporate a complainant’s marks).
...
2022-12-07 - Case Details
Michael Robertson,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0009).
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel agrees with Complainant’s allegation that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s HMRC mark.
...The Panel therefore rules that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview
3.0”), section 1.7 (UDRP panels often determine that disputed domain names are confusingly similar to a
complainant’s marks where the disputed domain names fully incorporate a complainant’s marks).
...
2022-12-23 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant´s contentions can be summarized as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or least confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, this Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark BEIN. ...
2021-06-09 - Case Details
See section 4.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element that the Complainant must establish is that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark rights.
...The alteration of the letter “a” with the letter “q” to the Complainant’s mark does not prevent the confusingly similar character of the Domain Name. As numerous UDRP panels have held, a domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element. ...
2021-12-08 - 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 VRBO mark.
...WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third
Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7 (where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark,
the domain name will normally be considered by UDRP panels to be confusingly similar).
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
...
2023-02-07 - Case Details
The onus of proving these elements is on the complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the owner of registered trade marks for VMWARE. For the Complainant to succeed on this element, it must show that “vmwarelab” is confusingly similar to VMWARE trademark. ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights.
Accordingly the first element has been met.
...
2010-08-24 - 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.
...D2004-0117 (a domain name incorporating a well-known trademark combined with a geographically descriptive term is confusingly similar to the trademark); Inter-IKEA Systems B.V. v. Hoon Huh,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0438 (the addition of the term "korea" in does not prevent the domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark).
...
2014-06-17 - 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...
2024-04-09 - Case Details
By registering the disputed domain names which are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark
CAMCONTACTS the Respondent was targeting the Complainant and its business. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-11-02 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
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...
2024-06-26 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The Panel also finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s DANSKO
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. ...
2024-11-21 - Case Details
Only if all three elements are fulfilled can the Panel grant the remedy requested by Complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP requires two elements to be proved. A disputed domain name should be (i) identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, (ii) in which a complainant has rights.
...This leads to the conclusion that overall impression of the Domain Name and Trademarks is so similar that the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademarks.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP has been fulfilled.
...
2019-02-14 - 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 evidence of opportunistic bad faith. ...
2020-07-07 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark CONDE NAST. Indeed, Complainant states that the disputed domain name incorporates entirely its trademark. ...Therefore, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s prior trademark.
Complainant has therefore satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2019-09-02 - Case Details