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
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
b) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Mark.
(c) Additional confusion results from the fact that the disputed domain name resolves to rotating websites that provide services that are similar to the financial services provided by the Complainant. ...iii) That the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its mark for the following reasons;
a) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the dominant portion of the Complainant’s mark COMERICA.
...
2014-08-28 - 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
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
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
Complainant
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
registered VENETA CUCINE mark as the Respondent has intentionally registered a confusingly similar
domain name that incorporates the Complainant’s mark in its entirety. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
7. Decision...
2023-05-05 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant submits that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the IPSOS trademark. The Domain
Name entirely and identically reproduces Complainant’s trademark. ...The Panel will proceed to analyze whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied in
this proceeding.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant must first of all establish rights in a trademark or
service mark and secondly that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark or
service mark.
...
2023-09-12 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the ARKEMA trademark.
The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s ARKEMA trademark in its entirety. ...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which the
Complainant has rights. The above requirement provided for in paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is accordingly
satisfied.
...
2023-06-23 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The evidence presented in the Complaint demonstrates that the Complainant is the owner of trademark
registrations for TRAVIS SCOTT in different jurisdictions.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Also, as numerous prior UDRP panels have recognized, the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety or a dominant feature of a trademark is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark. ...
2022-12-02 - 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
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
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
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
Considering these requirements, the Panel rules as follows:
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 a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...It has also been established by
prior UDRP panels that incorporating a trademark in its entirety into a domain name can be sufficient to
establish that the domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark (see, for example, section 1.7 of the
WIPO Overview 3.0).
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s VEOLIA marks.
...
2022-07-01 - Case Details
The third element a complainant must establish is that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establish that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...This means that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark and hence the first element of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...
2021-12-13 - Case Details
It contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Mark since it incorporates the Mark in its entirety with the addition of an extra “z” at the end of the second level, under the country-code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.co” (to which the Policy applies, unamended).
...The failure of the Complainant to prove any one of these elements means the Complaint must be denied.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant is the owner of, and therefore has rights in, the Mark.
...
2021-12-13 - Case Details
Then, Complainants make the following contentions.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainants claim that the disputed domain name is “virtually” identical and hence confusingly similar to Complainants’ trademarks THALES and THALES ALENIA SPACE. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires Complainants to show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to trademarks registered by Complainants.
...
2021-11-22 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights over the trademark SODEXO based on the
trademark registration submitted to the Complaint.
...The Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark
for the purposes of the Policy.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the disputed domain name is confusingly
similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has established rights according to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the
Policy.
...
2022-11-15 - Case Details