Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark VIAGRA, to which the Complainant has rights, because it merely combines the Complainant’s mark with the geographic descriptor “Indonesia”.
...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 establishes that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...
2015-02-26 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are at least confusingly similar to Complainant's GROUPON mark, in that each contains Complainant's GROUPON mark followed by a dash and a common English word. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Where a domain name incorporates the Complainant's mark in its entirety, the domain name is generally confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark, despite the addition of other words in the domain name and despite the fact that common words may be appended or common words inserted therein. ...
2014-08-22 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly-similar and, in fact, almost identical to the Complainant’s trademark U.S.CELLULAR, in which it has rights. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark U.S.CELLULAR, in which it registered rights for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2014-07-15 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it owns rights in the COSTCO trademark. There are many UDRP decisions that find that the pairing of a distinctive trademark with less distinctive terms is confusingly similar to the distinctive trademark. ...D2001-0032 ( and confusingly similar to LEXUS).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name, which pairs the COSTCO trademark with the generic term “story” is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s COSTCO trademark.
...
2014-07-31 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To satisfy paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights.
...A domain name which contains a common or obvious misspelling of a trademark is confusingly similar to the mark where the misspelled trademark remains the dominant or principal component of the domain name. ...
2017-07-17 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Respondent has registered the disputed domain name , which is identical to the Complainant's registered trademark, except for the addition of the word "hub". ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant does own trademark rights in the mark PAYU by virtue of European Trademark Registration No. 010521128.
...
2017-07-11 - Case Details
Many UDRP panels have found that a domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant's trademark where the domain name incorporates the complainant's trademark in its entirety. ...The Panel finds that Complainant has proven that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ARKEMA trademark and paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
...
2016-06-07 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel considers that the information provided by the Complainant clearly attests that the disputed domain name can be considered confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark MARLBORO.
...Likewise, the TLD “.site”, is typically irrelevant when determining whether a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a protected mark.
Accordingly, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark MARLBORO, and this requisite has been satisfied.
...
2017-04-24 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar for the purpose of the Policy to the
Complainant’s trademark KPMG.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-01-19 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which
the Complainant has rights, within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-02-09 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Where the trade mark is recognisable within the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered
confusingly similar to the mark (WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third
Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) at section 1.7). ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-11-18 - Case Details
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.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-04-29 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel must first determine whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to
a trademark or service mark in which Complainants has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of
the Policy. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel must first determine whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainants has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...
2022-06-17 - Case Details
Furthermore, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SUMMERSALT Mark because it incorporates
that Mark in its entirety and adds the designation “us”, which does not prevent a finding of confusingly
similarity. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-08-09 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This Panel must first determine whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a
trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the
Policy. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
7. Decision...
2022-12-08 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel must first determine whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a
trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the
Policy. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel must first determine whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...
2022-10-27 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar for the purpose of the Policy to the
Complainant’s trademark CARREFOUR.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-08-15 - Case Details
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its CSEA trademark. It notes that the only difference between its domain name and the disputed domain name is the elimination of the second “e.”
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established common law rights in the CSEA mark by virtue of its use of the mark in commerce. ...
2021-07-02 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Mark because the disputed domain name entirely incorporates the Complainant’s Mark with the exception of the letter “e”. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark.
...
2021-08-11 - 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, disregarding the Top-Level Domain part of the domain name (e.g., disregarding the “.com”
part of the domain name.)
...The addition of the
letters “www” does not prevent a finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s BUT registered trademark.
The Complainant succeeds on the first element of the Policy.
...
2023-03-10 - Case Details