However, the Complainant has not presented
evidence that it is known by or has common law trademark rights in respect of the term “ro”. […] 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. ...In the circumstances, the Panel
concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s RAGNARÖK ORIGIN
trademark. This is admittedly a close call”.
...
2022-08-01 - Case Details
Given that the Domain Name is legally identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s Y8 mark, Complainant maintains that it has satisfied the first element of the Policy.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel must first determine whether the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. ...
2016-07-21 - Case Details
Whether a domain name that incorporates a Complainant’s trademark together with a prefix or suffix is confusingly similar to the trademark has been considered in a number of UDRP decisions. It has been held that a domain name consisting of the Complainant’s trademark and ending with the “.com” gTLD is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark (see Sanofi-Aventis v. ...The Panel has had little difficulty in finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark NESTLE, as the additional elements are, in a trademark sense, banal.
...
2011-03-07 - Case Details
Accordingly, each of the Disputed Domain Names is confusingly similar to the BESTFORM Trademark for
the purposes of the Policy, and the Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-05-14 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel considers the Disputed Domain Name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark
FALCONX. ...Accordingly, the Panel
finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has
rights”. The Panel considers that exactly the same approach applies in the current case and “falx” remains
confusingly similar to FALCONX. ...
2024-07-09 - 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. ...Complainant
B. Respondents
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the first element of the Policy has been established
B. ...
2025-07-14 - Case Details
Complainant contends that where a domain name consists of a common, obvious or intentional misspelling of a trademark, the domain name is considered to be confusingly similar for the purposes of the first element. Complainant requests that the Panel find the Domain Name to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(i).
...Further, the Panel determines that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the KRAVET marks. The Domain Name misspells the term KRAVET by swapping the letters “r” and “a”. ...
2020-04-03 - Case Details
Identity or Confusing Similarity
Complainant further contends that the Domain Name is identical with and confusingly similar to the RX AMERICA Marks pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). Complainant argues that the Domain Name is confusingly similar, because it wholly incorporates the RX AMERICA Marks with the addition of generic or descriptive terms.
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the RX AMERICA Marks pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
Rights or Legitimate Interest.
...
2005-08-16 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that it is clear that the Disputed Domain Name is similar to the various trademark rights of which it is proprietor.
The Complainant states that it has clearly illustrated that it owns confusingly similar trademarks to the Disputed Domain Name. ...The Panel accepts that the Complainant has prior trademark rights which the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to and that consumers viewing the site “www.my-02.com” will think that it is linked with the Complainant. ...
2017-03-14 - Case Details
The second question is whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to that name, once the “.com.au” extension is ignored (it is self-evidently not identical). ...The issue is whether the combination of those terms, as they appear in the disputed domain name, is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered business name as a whole.
There are many examples of such combinations being found to be confusingly similar to a name or mark in which a complainant has rights. ...
2011-02-24 - Case Details
D2001-0381 (May 4, 2001) (“ewallstjournal” found confusingly
similar to the WALL STREET JOURNAL mark, despite the use of the abbreviation
“st” for “street”); Microsoft Corporation v. ...D2000-1568
(January 25, 2001) ( found confusingly similar to
the MICROSOFT OFFICE 2000 mark because “MS” is commonly used as
shorthand for “Microsoft”).
...
2005-02-08 - Case Details
case=D2016-1605
page 5
Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that a domain name may be 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” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...In other words, Respondent has, through the use of a
confusingly similar disputed domain name, created a likelihood of confusion with the CRACKER BARREL
marks. ...
2023-05-23 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names and the BMW trademark are confusingly similar.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under the first element, the Complainant must establish that the disputed domain names are identical with,
or confusingly similar to, the Complainant’s trademark rights.
...
2023-05-19 - Case Details
WhoisGuard Protected / Andrey Molodavkin,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1604( found confusingly similar to CVS Marks): Facebook, Inc. v. Daniel Khrayzat,
WIPO Case No. D2019-2813 ( and found confusingly similar to FACEBOOK mark).
...It is generally regarded as prima facie evidence of no rights or legitimate interests if a complainant shows that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark, that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and that a complainant has not authorized the respondent to use its mark (or an expression which is confusingly similar to its mark), whether in the disputed domain name or otherwise. ...
2021-07-12 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s distinctive trademark MICHELIN with the letter “e” replaced by the letter “a”, followed by the word “tires”, and the gTLD “.com”.
...For all these reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is not called “Michalintires” or anything similar. ...
2022-03-22 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant insists that that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered
trademarks, in that the disputed domain name leads with its OLYMPIC mark and that the contents of the
website to which the disputed domain name previously resolved, included linked five circles extremely similar
to Complainant’s trademarked five links symbol. ...Ahmed Syed, AdvertisingPulse
Case No. D2022-0228
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith...
2022-03-16 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s trademark, with the insertion of the letter “u” between the letters “car” and “van” and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. ...For all these reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is not called “caruvana” or anything similar. ...
2021-04-13 - Case Details
Under the Policy this is sufficient to establish
that the domain name in dispute is identical or confusingly similar. See Magnum
Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjocker and Garwood S. Wilson Sr.,
WIPO Case No. ...D2000-0273 where
the panel found that the combination of Complainant’s mark YAHOO with
a number of generic words such as a city name or abbreviations for a country
name, gave rise to a domain name that was confusingly similar to the registered
mark of the Complainant.
The Panel concludes that the domain name in dispute is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered mark.
...
2007-04-04 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established that it has valid rights in the COOL HAND and COOL HAND POKER (logo) trademarks.
The domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks since the addition of one letter, “c”, does not alter the similarity to the otherwise similar word element of the COOL HAND POKER (logo) trademark. ...
2011-11-21 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its own NATWEST trademark.
In furtherance of this contention the Complainant argues 4 points:
a) the disputed domain name is comprised of the dominant “Ntwest” element which is confusingly similar with its NATWEST trade mark;
b) that the inclusion of the “co-uk” suffix element in the disputed domain name, before the “.com” generic top level domain (gTLD), does not operate to distinguish an otherwise deceptively similar mark which takes as its main element an established trademark and cites Porsche AG v. ...In particular the Panel accepts that:
a) the principal element in the disputed domain name is the “ntwest” component which is closely similar to the Complainant’s mark NETWEST and notes the many instances where such features in “typosquatting” cases considered under the UDRP have been found to be confusingly similar;
b) the “co-uk” element and the “.com” gTLD are to be read down or disregarded in the analysis. ...
2013-01-04 - Case Details