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
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
Complainant
Complainant pleads that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered trademarks JBS
and SEARA, since it fully incorporates Complainant’s referred trademarks.
...The Parties
A. Complainant
B. Respondent
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith...
2023-02-13 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant sets out that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the
trademarks INSPIRUS, in which the Complainant has rights and sets out details of its registered trademarks
for INSPIRUS.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established registered rights in its INSPIRUS trademark.
...
2023-09-13 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights in the DIRTYROULETTE trademark.
The trademark rights are established since 2016 through the Complainant’s trademark registration.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-12-09 - Case Details
The Panel finds therefore, that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar because it incorporates Complainant’s registered CLOROX Mark in its entirety and is recognizable within the disputed domain name.
...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. ...
2021-01-08 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel determines that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. See, Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v. Above.com Domain Privacy / Transure Enterprise Ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0314 (finding to be confusingly similar to the IKEA mark); Mastercard International Incorporated v. Arena Offices,
WIPO Case No. ...
2018-05-17 - Case Details
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established that it has rights to the Trade Marks.
...Further, the Panel accepts that “NB Arizona” is the truncated version of the National Bank of Arizona and therefore confusingly similar to the Domain Name. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2017-02-24 - Case Details
D2002-1115 (addition of generic words “healthcare” to form domain name deemed “confusingly similar to the BAYER trademark”); Aventis Pharma SA., Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH v. Jonathan Valicenti,
WIPO Case No. ...Therefore, this Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which Complainant has rights, in violation of the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2011-01-11 - Case Details
Prior UDRP panels have recognized that the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety may be sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered mark. AT&T Corp. v. William Gormally,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0758 (finding confusingly similar to ATT); Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. ...Jonathan Valicenti,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0037 (finding confusingly similar to LANTUS).
For the all of the foregoing reasons, this Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's ACCUTANE mark, in which the Complainant has established rights. ...
2010-04-08 - Case Details
Given the above, the Complainant requests that the Panel finds the
disputed domain name identical or confusingly similar to its SANDVIK Mark for the purposes of satisfying
paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-11-03 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel holds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
TOTALENERGIES trademark.
...The Parties
A. Complainant
B. Respondent
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith...
2022-11-02 - 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. ...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Complainant contends that because Respondent has created a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s FOOTPATROL Mark, the domain name Complainant uses to operate its Official FOOTPATROL Website, as found in section 6.A. above, it is implausible to believe that Respondent was not aware of Complainant’s mark when it registered its confusingly similar disputed domain name. ...
2021-09-01 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided details of a number of registered trade marks it has registered for HOMEAWAY, including the mark in respect of which full details are set out above. ...The repetition of the first element of the Complainant's HOMEAWAY mark, that is "HOME", at the end of the disputed domain name does not serve to prevent it from being confusingly similar to that mark; see Formula One Licensing B.V (supra).
The Panel accordingly finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2018-06-28 - Case Details
The Complainant argues that the domain name is phonetically identical and visually confusingly similar to the Complainant’s VIATOR trademark. The Respondent’s domain name incorporates the entirety of the Complainant’s VIATOR mark, with the only difference being the addition of the letter “u”. ...C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To satisfy this element, the Panel must find that (i) the Complainant has demonstrated its rights in the VIATOR mark; and (ii) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s VIATOR mark.
...
2008-06-25 - Case Details
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOOD MYTHICAL MORNING Mark because:
Complainant’s Mark is clearly recognizable within the Domain Name; the Top-Level Domain is generally not
determinative in establishing whether the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark; and
adding the term “merch” (a shortened form of “merchandise”) to the Mark does not prevent a f inding of
confusing similarity with Complainant’s Mark. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-10-30 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it is the owner of registered trademark rights in the mark ONLYFANS.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-03-15 - Case Details
Complainants contend the omission of the letter “u” from the Domain
Name is an intentional misspelling of the THE WORK NUMBER mark and, therefore, the Domain Name is
confusingly similar to the mark.
Accordingly, Complainants conclude the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the THE WORK
NUMBER mark.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2026-04-02 - Case Details
These elements are discussed below.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Where a Complainant has established statutory and/or common law rights to a
particular trademark through continuous and exclusive use of the mark, the subsequent
apposite inquiry is whether the domain name is identical or confusingly similar
to that trademark.
...As the Complainant has established rights in the DOGGON’ WHEELS mark, the question
for the Panel is whether the domain name is identical
or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The two are not identical,
as the Complainant asserts, but rather are very similar. ...
2003-05-22 - 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. ...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...
2025-11-27 - Case Details