Complainant
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its marks. The addition of a generic or descriptive term with which the mark is used does not alter the fact the domain name is confusingly similar to the mark.
...D2006-1637, finding that the addition of the word “area” does not remove a domain name from being confusingly similar).
Accordingly, in the present case, the addition of the word “wood” to the Complainant's mark is not sufficient to distinguish the domain name. ...
2009-03-31 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant has the burden to show both that it has rights in a trademark or service mark and that the respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that mark. ...Accordingly, Complainant has rights in the AMD mark.
A domain name is “identical or confusingly similar” to a trademark
for purposes of the Policy when the domain name includes the trademark, or confusingly
similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name. ...
2005-08-23 - Case Details
D2000-0249, the Administrative Panel equated the phrase "confusingly similar" with "various tests in trademark law of whether the use of a mark is likely to deceive or cause confusion." ...As a leading court has noted, the language " ‘confusingly similar’ is a different standard from the ‘likelihood of confusion’ standard of trademark infringement… ." ...
2000-12-05 - Case Details
A. The Domain Names are Confusingly Similar to Complainant’s Mark
Complainant has established rights in the mark MYOBLOC by virtue of its use
of the mark in commerce since December 2000. ...The
Domain Names, which consist of the close misspelling "myoblock," are
confusingly similar to the MYOBLOC mark. See, e.g., Alta Vista Co. v. Yomtobian,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0937 (October 13,
2000) (the domain names and are confusingly
similar to trademark ALTA VISTA); Oxygen Media, LLC v. ...
2001-08-02 - Case Details
c) It is my contention that the website names are not identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark. I have never offered the websites for sale. They are not being used to blackmail Privilege Insurance. ...The fundamental problem for the Complainants in this administrative proceeding lies in establishing that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainants, or any of them, have rights (there is plainly no identity in this case).
...
2002-11-15 - Case Details
This still clearly leaves the disputed domain name confusingly similar to Ms. Van Susteren’s name.
The Complainant further contends that, through appearing on the Complainant’s television program, Ms. ...D2000-1415 (January 23, 2001), where the disputed domain
name, , was found to have been deliberately misspelled
and to be confusingly similar nonetheless to the famous actress’s name; and
see Julia Fiona Roberts v. Russell Boyd, WIPO
Case No. ...
2003-07-07 - Case Details
The domain name need only be confusingly similar to a mark held by Complainant.
Two lines of authority provide support for the finding by this Panel that the
domain name is confusingly similar to WAL-MART.
...D2000-0580.
The domain name is held by the Panel to be confusingly similar to the trademarks
of the Complainant. The Complainant has thus met the burden of proof as established
by subparagraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2003-10-24 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant states that it has been using the DIEBOLD mark since 1859, and is the owner of 5 U.S. and 245 international trademark registrations for DIEBOLD. ...Forum, January 11, 2002), finding the addition of the generic word "sex" to the GOOGLE mark in a domain name was confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent’s domain names , , and are confusingly similar to Complainant’s DIEBOLD mark, and that Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
...
2003-07-17 - Case Details
Thus, it contends the two terms are confusingly similar. The Complainant has listed numerous decisions under the Policy which have recognized that this conduct, commonly referred to as "typo squatting", leads to the inference of a virtually identical and/or confusingly similar domain name to the Complainant’s trademark under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...The Complainant’s rights in the mark have been clearly established especially since the Respondent did not contest these rights.
Mark Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds the Complainant has shown sufficient evidence that the Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark EPOCRATES. ...
2004-03-26 - 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
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
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
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
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's Mark notwithstanding Respondent's appending the letters "lfe" and "lif", respectively, as suffixes to the Complainant's Mark to form the disputed domain names. ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's Mark and that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met.
...
2016-08-18 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant submits that it holds registered rights to the REPETTO trademarks as outlined above. The disputed domain name is alleged to be confusingly similar to these registered marks, as it incorporates the entire REPETTO mark along with merely descriptive elements.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that Complainant owns longstanding registered rights in its REPETTO trademarks. ...
2017-09-15 - Case Details
The addition of the dictionary words “global” and “service” and the gTLD “.com” which is a necessary
functional part of a domain name does not prevent the Domain Name from being confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s UMICORE mark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant
has rights for the purpose of the Policy.
...Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
B. Respondent
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-04-22 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element requires the Panel to consider two issues: first, whether the Complainant has rights in a relevant mark; and, second, whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that mark. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant owns registrations for the ARCELORMITTAL mark. ...
2021-09-14 - Case Details
The Panel is satisfied that the Domain Name is subject to the control of Respondent and will therefore proceed to analyze whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied by Complainant in this proceeding.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant must establish rights in a trademark and secondly that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
...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. ...
2012-02-23 - Case Details