It is also clear that by virtue of its widespread and long-standing use and the repute of the IWC Trademark that an unrelated entity or person using a similar domain name is likely to lead to members of the public being confused and deceived.
Complainant argues that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its IWC Trademark, in that it consists of the IWC Trademark with the addition of the generic term “replica”, and the gTLD “.org”. ...On this basis the Panel finds:
a) Complainant has rights in respect of the IWC Trademark.
b) The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the IWC Trademark.
Accordingly, the Panel is satisfied that the first element of the Policy has been met.
...
2013-03-11 - Case Details
page 3
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has documented its ownership of various U.S. trademark registrations for the SOMALOGIC
mark, covering life science research and development services, as well as development testing services.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-11-14 - Case Details
Therefore, the Complainant considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
The Complainant also alleges that the addition of a generic Top-Level Domain name such as “.com” is irrelevant to determine whether a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a protected mark or not.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The evidence presented demonstrates that the Complainant is the owner of international registrations for the trademark BOLLORÉ/BOLLORE. ...
2016-11-29 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant clearly has rights in the mark MASTERCARD, based on its long and extensive use and ownership of numerous trademark registrations worldwide.
The domain name is identical or at least confusingly similar to the MASTERCARD mark because it merely inserts two hyphens between “master” and “card”. ...
2007-09-13 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant asserts that Respondent has registered and used the domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to the MEXSANA family of marks, which Complainant asserts includes its MEXANA mark. Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the MEXSANA mark. Even Respondent noted the similarity. ...
2014-04-10 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. ...The Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark and the Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2021-09-29 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is both visually and phonetically similar to the NATIXIS trademarks and therefore is confusingly similar to the Complainant's NATIXIS trademarks. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
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.
...
2017-08-02 - Case Details
The Complainant asserts, without contradiction, that it has not authorized the Respondent’s use of a Domain Name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks.
The Respondent has not come forward with an explanation for his selection of the Domain Name. ...As the Complainant observes, many UDRP decisions find that such use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a trademark is itself an indication of bad faith.
In this case, however, the Domain Name is a sensible English phrase comprised of dictionary words, and it might have been chosen for reasons other than emulation of the Complainant’s similar marks. ...
2008-01-04 - Case Details
A complainant must prove each of these three elements.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name in issue is clearly very similar to the trademarks of GPI. It uses the mark GOULDS in its entirety. ...Promoting competing brands using a domain name confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services. There is ample support for this proposition. ...
2007-05-30 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
1. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SHIPWORKS trademark, which it uses in connection with software and service for managing e-commerce sales transactions, customer records, and shipments. It is also confusingly similar to the domain names that Complainant has registered and uses, including and . ...
2010-09-29 - Case Details
The element ‘fotoboek' should therefore play a less significant role in the comparison. As a result, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the International Trade Mark CEWE.
Secondly, Complainant submitted that the Domain Name is similar to the Community Trade Mark CEWE PHOTOBOOK. ...The second element in the Domain Name, ‘fotoboek' is phonetically and conceptually identical to the second part of said Community Trade Mark. As a result, the Domain Name is confusingly similar. Similar arguments apply in relation to the Community Trade Mark CEWE PHOTOWORLD. According to Complainant the Domain Name is also confusingly similar to this Community Trade Mark.
...
2010-08-02 - 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
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
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark 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 disputed domain name incorporates in full Complainant’s SEZANE mark, numerous UDRP panels have agreed that supplementing or modifying a trademark with additional terms does not render a domain name not “identical or confusingly similar” for purpos...
7. ...
2024-02-21 - 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
Where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trade
mark, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that 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...
2023-09-18 - Case Details
Michael Robertson, WIPO Case No. D2000-0009).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel agrees with Complainant’s allegation that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s CORNING mark.
...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark and
concludes that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is established.
...
2023-11-24 - 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
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
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