A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is similar to the Complainant’s CREDIT MUTUEL trademarks in which the Complainant has multiple trademark registrations in France and other European jurisdictions, since 1988.
...Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark for purposes of the Policy when the domain name includes the complainant’s registered mark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name.
...
2015-01-30 - 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 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
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name is confusingly similar to the Levitra trademark.
When a respondent merely adds descriptive terms to an otherwise distinctive and well known trademark, the domain name is considered confusingly similar to the trademark.
Adding a descriptive phrase such as "all about" to the distinctive
Levitra trademark results in a confusingly similar domain name. ...
2003-06-13 - Case Details
Many UDRP panels have found that a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s
trademark for purposes of the first element, where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed
domain name. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-04-27 - Case Details
The Panel will deal with each of these requirements in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complaint contends that the contentious domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks set out in detail above. Presumably this means that it is confusingly similar to all of them. The Complainant also contends that the domain name is identical to its trademarks ‘POST‘. ...
2006-03-16 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-05-21 - Case Details
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. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-05-18 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Domain Name is Confusingly Similar to the PLAYBOY Marks
Complainant asserts that the Domain Name is clearly similar - in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression- to the PLAYBOY mark. ...The onus of proving these elements is on Complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element, Complainant must have rights in a trademark or service mark, and the Domain Name must be identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark or service mark.
...
2012-05-04 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
ELECTROLUX mark as such incorporates the ELECTROLUX mark in its entirety. ...Thus, the Panel will deal with each of the requirements in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant has to show that the disputed domain name is
(i) identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, (ii) in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2023-05-01 - Case Details
The Complainant next argues that any such offering by the Respondent is not a bona fide offering because
the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CANNAVINUS mark, and because the
Complainant’s goods and the Respondent’s goods are similar products.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-09-30 - Case Details
The Complainant considers that
the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademark. The “AISTOM” element
is confusingly similar to the term “ALSTOM”. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-01-05 - Case Details
The Panel therefore considers all of the aforementioned disputed domain
names confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark for MODERNA.
As to the disputed domain names and , the Panel refers to the WIPO
Overview 3.0, section 1.9, which states: “[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”. ...Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names are all confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s trademark and finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of the first element
under the Policy.
...
2022-08-30 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To satisfy this element, the Panel must find that (1) Complainant has demonstrated its rights in the BSI mark; and (2) the disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark.
...As discussed above, Respondent has selected a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark. Respondent used the Domain Name to operate a website that offered what appeared to be banking and other financial services that were similar or identical to Complainant's services. ...
2009-05-06 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent contends that Complainant has not satisfied all three of the elements required under the Policy
for a transfer of the Domain Name.
(i) Identical or confusingly similar
Respondent states the Domain Name is not identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks held by
Complainant. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2025-10-23 - Case Details
However, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s default.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is required to establish the two following elements: (1) that it has trademark rights, and, if so, (2) that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark.
...Based on the foregoing findings, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MAGGIE SOTTERO trademarks, and paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is established.
...
2021-06-18 - Case Details
The addition of the generic dictionary words “watches store” to the BURBERRY word mark does not negate the confusingly similar aspects of Respondent’s Domain Name pursuant to Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
Moreover, the addition of a generic top-level domain such as “.com” is irrelevant when determining whether a dispute domain name is confusingly similar to a protected mark.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant presents evidence of multiple trademark registrations with the USPTO for its BURBERRY marks. ...
2011-04-07 - Case Details
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Respondent cannot (and does not) dispute that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s FRENCH OPEN trade mark registration for cosmetics.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights.
However, it is convenient here to explore also the Complainant’s allegation that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Community and United States Trade Mark registrations for ROLAND GARROS FRENCH OPEN. ...
2014-02-07 - Case Details
The Complainant also notes that the “lplfinance” portion of the disputed domain name is confusingly similar
to its LPL FINANCIAL trademark given the visual, phonetic, and semantic similarities between “finance” and
“financial”.
...In this regard, the LPL mark is readily recognizable within the disputed
domain name and as such, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the LPL trademark. Further,
the “lplfinance” portion of the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s LPL
FINANCIAL trademark given that the terms “finance” and “financial” are very similar in terms of appearance,
pronunciation, and meaning. ...
2023-02-09 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant must prove that the Disputed Domain Name is
confusingly similar to the registered trademark in which 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...
2023-08-07 - Case Details