Complainant
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the
Complainant has rights.
The Complainant makes the following contentions.
...Thus, the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the
Complainant has rights.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
...
2025-01-24 - Case Details
On the first place, before establishing whether or not the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s trademarks, the Panel wants to point out that the addition of a generic Top-Level Domain
(“gTLD”), e.g., “.com,” “.biz,” “.edu,” “.org,” or “.net” is generally disregarded when determining if the disputed
domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark. ...Thus, Respondent
chose the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks, in order to
generate Internet traffic to its website.
...
2022-06-02 - Case Details
In the present case, the Panel must decide whether the Complainant has introduced elements of proof, which allow the Panel to conclude that its allegations are true.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well established in previous UDRP decisions that, where the disputed domain name incorporates a complainant’s registered trademark, this may be sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy. ...In view of the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known and widely used SODEXO registered trademark, which the Complainant has demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Panel, prior rights in and prior commercial use of.
...
2021-12-14 - Case Details
Therefore, the Domain Name could be considered virtually identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. ...D2001-0110, stating “The incorporation of a Complainant’s well-known trademark in the registered Domain Name is considered sufficient to find the Domain Name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.”
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first requirement that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark, under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2021-11-16 - Case Details
Pavlishin Mihail/PrivacyProtect.org,
WIPO Case No. D2011-0274 ( confusingly similar to ALLEGRA trademark); and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. PrivacyProtect.org/Vicktor Konin,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1090 ( confusingly similar to VALIUM trademark)).
In Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Limited v. Dejan Macesic,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-01-04 - Case Details
AAIM,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0403.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainants must establish rights in a trademark and secondly that the disputed domain name is identical to or confusingly similar to the trademark in which Complainants have rights.
...D2006-1030 in which the panel found that the domain name <1-xenical.com> was confusingly similar to complainant’s trademark XENICAL.
The inclusion of the generic Top-Level Domain descriptor “.com” in the disputed domain name does not affect a finding of confusing similarity. ...
2013-07-22 - Case Details
AAIM,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0403.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant must establish rights in a trademark and secondly that the disputed domain name is identical to or confusingly similar to the trademark in which Complainant has rights.
...D2000-0429, finding that the top-level domain such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar).
The Panel finds that Complainant has proven that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks ARMANI and ARMANI JEANS.
...
2013-03-04 - Case Details
Policy, paragraph 4(a).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based upon the trademark registrations cited by Complainant, it is apparent that Complainant has rights in
and to the ITRON 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...
2023-04-24 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(i) Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant states that its MICHELIN trademarks enjoy a worldwide reputation. Complainant owns numerous MICHELIN trademark registrations around the world. ...D2012-2224 (domain name is confusingly similar to the complainant’s very distinctive trademark MICHELIN).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2019-08-19 - Case Details
Between June 2004 and June 2005, the TOEFL test was administered to 650,000 people.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the TOEIC and TOEFL trademarks, as they incorporate the Complainant’s distinctive TOEIC and TOEFL trademarks in their entity. ...Supplemental filing
A. Complainant’s Contentions
Identical or confusingly similar
According to established UDRP case law, 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
(Educational Testing Service v. ...
2006-12-06 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent’s contentions are as follows.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Respondent does not dispute that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. ...The onus of proving these elements is on the Complainant.
A. 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 Mark.
...
2014-10-29 - Case Details
D2008-0733 (finding to be confusingly similar to the TEREX mark, and stating, “[i]t has long been held that the addition of a generic or descriptive term to a mark will not alter the fact that the domain name at issue is confusingly similar to the mark in question.”); and Sears Brands, LLC v. Alex Pachan, NAF Claim No. 420527 (finding to be confusingly similar to the SEARS mark).
Therefore, the Panel rules that the Complainant has demonstrated that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2015-03-31 - Case Details
D2015-0697, so that this is not the first time the Respondent registered domain names confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
Hence the Respondent registered the disputed domain name solely with the purpose of obtaining a domain name confusingly similar to the ARMOX trademark in order to confuse Internet users as to the origin of the website content or the affiliation of the Respondent with the Complainant.
...Michael Robertson,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0009).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Two requirements must be satisfied under the first element of the Policy, (a) the Complainant must prove that it has rights in a trademark and (b) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to this trademark.
...
2016-10-05 - Case Details
The onus of proving these elements is on the Complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a name, trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...With the addition of the distinguishing terms in the Trade Mark, the Panel considers that CHURCHILL ISLAND HERITAGE FARM & FUNCTIONS AUSTRALIA is not confusingly similar to Churchill Island Café.
The Disputed Domain Name is not confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. ...
2016-06-08 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's BHP trademarks. The disputed domain name includes BHP mark in its entirety. ...In other words, Respondent has, through the use of a confusingly similar domain name and webpage contents, created a likelihood of confusion with the BHP marks. ...
2017-08-03 - 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
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
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
page 3
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...
2022-04-11 - Case Details