A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
7.5 The Complainant must establish two separate elements under Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...The issue in this case is whether the Disputed Domain and the Complainant’s mark are confusingly similar.
7.8 It is well-established in previous Panel decisions that where a domain
name takes a mark of a company and then adds words descriptive of the goods
or services it provides, the resulting domain name is confusingly similar to
the mark in question. ...
2006-03-29 - Case Details
Complainants
The Complainants contend that the Domain Names are all confusingly similar
to the Complainants’ service mark EROS GUIDE and that the Domain Names all feature
its mark EROS in which it claims unregistered rights and that the Domain Names
are all confusingly similar to the Domain Names through which the Complainants
provide their services, the bulk of them being combinations of the mark EROS
and the name of a city or country.
...On that basis, the Panel is in no doubt that all the Domain Names are confusingly similar to one or more of the Complainants’ service marks, being the registered mark EROS GUIDE, the unregistered mark EROS and the Complainants’ domain names identified above.
...
2003-03-17 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain is confusingly similar to the Mark because the disputed domain name is composed of the Complainant’s exact Mark the letter “g” is changed to the visually similar letter “q”.
...The Center did receive emails from a person identifying herself as [Name Redacted] who denied registering the disputed domain name and stated that her name was fraudulently used to register the disputed domain name.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark.
...
2019-11-13 - Case Details
The Complainant next argues that any such offering by the Respondent is not a bona fide offering because
the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CANNAVINUS mark, and because the
Complainant’s goods and the Respondent’s goods are similar products.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-09-30 - 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
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
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
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
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
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
i. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainants must show that the disputed domain names are “identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant[s] ha[ve] rights”.
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to trademarks or service marks in which Complainants have rights, and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2011-12-06 - Case Details
Based on the foregoing, the disputed domain name is clearly confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. ...In the present case, the Panel must decide whether the Complainant has introduced elements of proof, which allow the Panel to conclude that its allegations are true.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well established in previous UDRP decisions that, where the disputed domain name incorporates a complainant’s registered trademark, this may be sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2019-07-23 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel must find that the Complainant has a trademark or service mark and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark or service mark for the Complainant to succeed.
...MasterCard Brasil,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1691, "mastercard-brasil.com" confusingly similar to MASTERCARD; Brunswick Family Boat Co. Inc. v. Andrea Chorbadjian,
WIPO Case No. D2013-1973, "baylinerbrasil.com" confusingly similar to BAYLINER.
...
2017-09-19 - Case Details
The Complainant’s Internet presence is extremely important to its business; by the end of fiscal year 2000, Internet sales to its customers reached nearly 50 percent of its revenue and averaged $40 million per day.
The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainant has rights. If a domain name incorporates a famous mark in its entirety, it is confusingly similar to that mark despite the addition of other words.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel has disregarded the top level domain ‘.com’ for the purposes of comparison of each of the disputed domain names with the marks of the Complainant on the basis that this is a wholly generic element of a domain name.
...
2004-11-24 - 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
In the Panel’s view the gTLD “.com” in the disputed domain name does not affect the disputed domain name
for the purpose of determining whether it is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. In view of
the above, and absent any submission of the Respondent, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks EQUIFAX and EQUIFAX CREDIT WATCH, in which the
Complainant has rights.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-08-30 - Case Details
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. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-04-04 - Case Details
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
Complainant
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the
Complainant has rights.
The Complainant makes the following assertions.
...In the present case, the Panel must decide whether the Complainant has introduced elements of proof,
which allow the Panel to conclude that its allegations are true.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well established in previous UDRP decisions that, where the disputed domain name incorporates a
complainant’s registered trademark, this may be sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2023-02-23 - Case Details