Complainant
Complainant submits that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its A.S. ROMA ("ASROMA") trademarks, in particular as it contains the well-known ASROMA trademark in its entirety. ...The fact that the trademarks of Complainant have periods and spaces is irrelevant in finding that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks of Complainant.
The Panel finds that Complainant has proven that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademarks.
...
2016-01-12 - Case Details
Many UDRP decisions have found that a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant's trademark where the disputed domain name incorporates the complainant's trademark in its entirety. ...The fact that the trademarks of Complainant have periods and spaces is irrelevant in finding that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks of Complainant.
The Panel finds that Complainant has proven that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademarks.
...
2016-01-08 - Case Details
The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name and the name "Rijkswaterstaat" are confusingly similar. The only difference between them is the absence of the letter "s" in the Disputed Domain Name. ...The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the name Rijkswaterstaat for the purposes of article 2.1 (a) of the Regulations.
B. ...
2017-05-22 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This is a clear case of “typo squatting” because the Respondent has merely switched the letter “u” with the letter “o” in the Complainant's Mark. ...Therefore, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar. Terex Corporation v. Texas International Property Associates – NA,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0733; Nokia Corporation v. ...
2010-05-18 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in the HERNO trade mark, based on its various trade mark registrations.
...Accordingly, the Panel therefore finds that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s HERNO trade mark, and accordingly, paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2020-03-19 - Case Details
Because
Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name constitutes typosquatting,
the domain at issue is, by definition, confusingly similar to Complainant’s
trademarks. (“Respondent’s typosquatting, by its definition,
renders the domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.”);
See, Dow Jones & Co. v. ...D2003-0716 (October 30, 2003) (finding the domain
confusingly similar to EXPEDIA.COM and noting the visual and phonetic similarity
of the two); Lexar Media, Inc. v. ...
2005-07-15 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Complainant has not shown that the
disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service
mark in which the Complainant has rights (Brisbane City Council v. ...Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant, i.e., the City of Lake Worth, does not contend it has a registered trademark in the disputed domain name, . ...
2003-10-03 - 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, 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).
...
2014-09-09 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant relies on its common law rights to USALLIANCE, and its trademark registration for the mark USALLIANCE Design under US Trademark Registration No. 2,526,435.
...The Panel further finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the Complainant’s registered trademark USALLIANCE Design and its trade name USAlliance. ...
2015-11-20 - 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.
...It is well established that a domain name that wholly incorporates a trademark may be confusingly similar to that trademark for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of a descriptive or generic word. ...
2015-12-28 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well established that generic Top-Level Domains ("gTLDs"), such as ".com", may typically be disregarded in the assessment under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy (e.g., Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...In this light it is not sufficient to merely repeat that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar and has no connection to the Respondent's name (which the Complaint already stated as circumstances why the first and second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy were met). ...
2015-11-06 - Case Details
The disputed domain name, , is confusingly similar to Complainant's ZIONS BANK trademark.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established that it owns prior rights in the ZIONS BANK trademark and the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ZIONS BANK trademark.
...
2016-06-08 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established that it has rights to the trademark LINKEDIN.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark LINKEDIN in which the Complainant has rights and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy therefore are fulfilled.
...
2018-04-23 - 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 Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known trademark is sufficient evidence of bad faith registration and use. ...
2017-09-12 - Case Details
In this case, Complainant has alleged and convincingly demonstrated that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain names in an unfair attempt to profit off of Complainant's well-known FILIPPA K trademark.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain names and Complainant's mark may not be identical twins, but even fraternal twins may be confusingly similar – particularly when both are thin, attractive and clad in FILIPPA K branded outfits. ...DNL2017-0008 (finding to be confusingly similar to the COCCINELLE trademark).
Complainant has established the first element required under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2017-05-26 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The trademarks put forward by the Complainant demonstrate that the Complainant has rights in SHEPHERD
GROUP.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-04-07 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the f irst 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...
2025-09-15 - 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...
2025-05-07 - Case Details
As long established by previous UDRP panels, this is
sufficient to determine that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademarks.
The addition of the term “Europe”, does not prevent the disputed domain name to be 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...
2022-05-13 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the facts presented by the Complainant, this Panel finds that the disputed domain names are
confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights under Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-05-24 - Case Details