page 3
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...
2024-11-25 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant makes the following contentions.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
First, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is highly similar to
its earlier trademarks since it reproduces its trademark EURAZEO together with the term “groupe”.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain name is identical
or confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2022-10-05 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant makes the following submission
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the registered owner of trade marks in numerous jurisdictions. The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trade Mark.
...The onus of proving these elements is on the Complainant even though the Respondent failed to submit a response.
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 the Trade Mark.
...
2020-04-29 - Case Details
i) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has produced complete evidence demonstrating that the Complainant is entitled to use the trademark "SANTA LUCIA". ...Consequently, the domain name and the Complainant’s trademarks
are confusingly similar (see National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing,
Inc. v. Don Deaube, R & D Enterprises, WIPO
Case No. ...
2004-02-09 - 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”)“.com”, is generally disregarded when determining if the disputed domain name is identical or
confusingly similar to 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...
2023-06-08 - Case Details
Further, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, incorporating Complainant’s LESPORTSAC mark entirely while adding the geographic designation “Australia.” ...In summary, Respondent by choosing to register and use the Domain Name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LESPORTSAC mark, intended to ride on the goodwill of Complainant’s mark. ...
2013-03-13 - Case Details
The Panel will therefore proceed to analyze whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are
satisfied.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant must establish rights in a trademark or service
mark and secondly establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark
in which the Complainant has rights.
...Waqar Ali
Case No. D2023-3632
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith...
2023-11-01 - 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. The Panel concludes that the Disputed Domain Name is
confusingly similar to the ALLAN MYERS Mark.
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-11-04 - Case Details
As set forth in section 1.7 of WIPO Overview 3.0: “in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety
of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain
name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP
standing.” Further, as set forth in section 1.9 of WIPO Overview 3.0: “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…. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-08-18 - Case Details
In this case, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the widely
known ZENNI and ZENNI OPTICAL marks and were registered by the Respondent who has no relationship
with the Complainants, which means that a presumption of bad faith can be created.
...Complainants
B. Respondent
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith...
2022-03-22 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. 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(s).
...This conduct is commonly referred to as “typosquatting” and creates virtually identical and/or confusingly similar domain names to the trademarks of complainants.
On the basis of the foregoing findings, and according to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, this Panel finds and concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BHP BILLITON trademark.
...
2018-12-24 - Case Details
The addition will not have any impact on the overall impression of the dominant part of the Domain Name, “bmin”, which is confusingly similar, both visually and orally to the BWIN Mark. The Domain Name is confusingly similar aurally, visually and conceptually to the Complainant’s trade mark BWIN.
...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element, the Complainant must have trade or service mark rights and the Domain Name must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade or service mark.
...
2014-07-28 - Case Details
Based on the foregoing, the disputed domain name is clearly confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. ...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. ...
2019-07-23 - Case Details
i. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainants must show that the disputed domain names are “identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant[s] ha[ve] rights”.
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to trademarks or service marks in which Complainants have rights, and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2011-12-06 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant asserts registered rights in the EQUIFAX trademark. The Complainant submits that the
disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the EQUIFAX trademark.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under the first element, the Complainant must establish that the disputed domain name is identical with, or
confusingly similar to, the Complainant’s trademark rights.
...
2023-02-14 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
7.5 The Complainant must establish two separate elements under Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...The issue in this case is whether the Disputed Domain and the Complainant’s mark are confusingly similar.
7.8 It is well-established in previous Panel decisions that where a domain
name takes a mark of a company and then adds words descriptive of the goods
or services it provides, the resulting domain name is confusingly similar to
the mark in question. ...
2006-03-29 - Case Details
Complainants
The Complainants contend that the Domain Names are all confusingly similar
to the Complainants’ service mark EROS GUIDE and that the Domain Names all feature
its mark EROS in which it claims unregistered rights and that the Domain Names
are all confusingly similar to the Domain Names through which the Complainants
provide their services, the bulk of them being combinations of the mark EROS
and the name of a city or country.
...On that basis, the Panel is in no doubt that all the Domain Names are confusingly similar to one or more of the Complainants’ service marks, being the registered mark EROS GUIDE, the unregistered mark EROS and the Complainants’ domain names identified above.
...
2003-03-17 - Case Details
According to Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Trademark because it incorporates the entire Trademark and simply adds the generic term “store” along with the country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.nl”. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trademark as it incorporates the Trademark in its entirety. ...
2021-11-25 - 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. ...Second, 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 sufficient evidence of opportunistic bad faith. ...
2021-01-29 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant make the following contentions.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant first argues that it owns several trademarks E LECLERC registered prior to the disputed domain name. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to trademarks registered by the Complainant.
...
2021-02-11 - Case Details