It is implicit in this contention that, if the term “Corriere” is distinctively associated with the Complainant’s mark, that its use in the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to that mark.
However, the Complainant’s evidence does not clearly establish that contention. ...For all these reasons, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is not
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. This finding also appears
generally consistent with previous panel decisions, involving similar circumstances
to this case (in addition to the cases cited above, see also High-Class Distributions
S.r.l. v. ...
2006-07-27 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered mark for TIGERDIRECT. The only difference is the plural signifier “s”. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant clearly has rights in a mark for the purpose of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...
2010-05-10 - 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.
...The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is nearly identical, or if not identical, is confusingly similar to the Complainant's AMSCOT Mark. The words "cash advance" in the Disputed Domain Name are descriptive and indicate that the website provides cash advances and other similar financial services. ...
2014-12-29 - Case Details
iii) That the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its mark for the following reasons:
(a) The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the dominant portion of the Complainant’s mark BARCLAYS.
...c) The Domain Name adds a non-distinctive suffix and is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel accepts the Complainant’s contentions. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. ...
2012-08-17 - Case Details
c) That the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Two separate issues fall for consideration. Does the Complainant have rights in the marks and is the disputed domain name identical or confusingly similar to any such marks. ...The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its mark for the following reasons:
(a) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the dominant name in the Complainant’s trademarks.
...
2015-06-25 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is identical with or confusingly similar to the PLANET FITNESS Mark pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). Respondent has not contested the assertions by Complaint that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the PLANET FITNESS Mark.
As numerous courts and prior UDRP panels have recognized, the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered mark. ...
2010-11-10 - Case Details
Opinion of the Panel
1. Are the domain names identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights?
The Panel finds that the domain name
is substantially identical to the Complainant’s registered trademark ALASKA
STOCK IMAGES, and confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered trademark
ALASKA STOCK. ...Vasily
Terkin, WIPO Case No. D2003-0888 (
confusingly similar to PORSCHE). The Panel finds that both disputed domain names
are similar to Complainants marks.
2. ...
2005-01-06 - Case Details
Once the
gTLD is set aside, the disputed domain name remains confusingly similar to the Complainant’s LENZING
trademark. Accordingly, the Complainant contends that the requirements of Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy
are satisfied.
...Considering these requirements, the Panel rules as follows.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel holds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks
LENZING. ...
2025-11-28 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
CALIBRIUM Trademark pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2026-09-04 - Case Details
As such, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
Trademarks, and accordingly, paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-05-15 - Case Details
Considering these requirements, the Panel rules as follows:
page 4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel holds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark
VERSANTIS. ...Respondent
7. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel holds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark VERSANTIS. ...
2023-12-21 - Case Details
To summarize the Complaint, the Complainant is the owner of registration for the trademark TELFAR, in
respect of bags. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark owned by the Complainant. By
registering the Domain Name that comprises the Complainant’s TELFAR trademark in its entirety, with the
mere addition of the term “bagg” the Respondent has created a domain name that is confusingly similar to
the Complainant’s 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...
2023-05-01 - Case Details
It is well established that use of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s
mark to host sponsored links or advertisements, is evidence of bad faith. ...A complainant must prove each of
these three elements to succeed.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the owner of the WHATSAPP Mark and thus clearly has rights for the purposes of the
Policy.
...
2023-02-09 - 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...
2023-03-08 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), the Complainant shall prove that the Disputed Domain Name is
identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...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
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP, the Complainant must prove that the Domain Names are
identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-08-09 - Case Details
A complainant must prove each of these three
elements to succeed.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant clearly has rights in its FERM LIVING word and device trademarks.
...The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the FERM LIVING trademark for the purposes of
the Policy and thus paragraph 4(a)(i) (of the Policy) has been established.
...
2023-06-13 - Case Details
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its HUSCH BLACKWELL
trademark, because it represents a misspelled version of this 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...
2025-08-21 - Case Details
D2000-1487 (finding bad faith where complainant’s international
fame precludes innocent registration of a confusingly similar domain name). The mere fact that Respondent
registered the confusingly similar domain name without authorization is, in and of itself, evidence of its bad faith
registration. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-05-12 - Case Details
As already stated, the disputed domain name makes unauthorized use of a sign confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s registered BRITANNIC trademarks, in direct contravention of the Complainant’s rights in them.
...In view of the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the well-known
and widely used Complainant’s BRITANNIC trademarks, in which the Complainant has rights. ...
2024-08-23 - Case Details