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. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-11-04 - 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.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the first element of the Policy has been established.
...
2025-11-14 - Case Details
The Complainant further asserts that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
AMERICAN AIRLINES Trademark in which it has established rights. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has properly asserted its rights in the AMERICAN AIRLINES Trademark due to the long
use and registrations worldwide.
...
2023-02-28 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the f irst element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-03-06 - Case Details
Unless it becomes necessary to
distinguish between them, this decision will refer simply to the Respondent for ease of reference.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element that the Complainant must establish is that the disputed domain name is identical with, or
confusingly similar to, the Complainant’s trademark rights.
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the disputed domain name is
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, and the requirement under the first limb of the Policy is
satisfied.
...
2023-11-06 - Case Details
In particular, the Complainant asserts that:
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has
rights.
- The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered ONLYFANS Marks,
in light of the fact that it wholly incorporates the Complainant’s mark.
...The Panel may draw appropriate
inferences from the available evidence submitted by the Complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element, the Complainant must have relevant UDRP rights in a trademark and the disputed
domain name must be identical or confusingly similar to such trademark.
...
2023-11-21 - Case Details
According to the Complainant, the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith in the first place.
They are all confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and were registered several years after the
Complainant had registered its BFORBANK trademark. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-08-08 - 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 first contends that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith because
Respondent has created a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s globally well-known
VOLCOM Mark, as found in section 6A above. Prior UDRP panels have consistently found that the mere
registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names incorporating
the mark plus a descriptive term) to a widely known or famous trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by
itself create a presumption of bad faith. ...
2024-01-18 - Case Details
In particular, the Complainant asserts
that:
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant
has rights.
- The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered FLINGSTER
trademark, in light of the fact that, according to the Complainant, “the [D]isputed [D]omain
[N]ame is a typosquatted version of the [Mark] where Respondent dropped the letter ‘n’ from
FLINGSTER”.
...The Panel may draw appropriate
inferences from the available evidence submitted by the Complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element, the Complainant must have relevant rights in a trademark and the disputed
domain name must be identical or confusingly similar to such trademark.
...
2022-12-05 - Case Details
In particular, the Complainant asserts
that:
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant
has rights.
- The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered FLINGSTER
trademark, in light of the fact that, according to the Complainant, “the Disputed Domain Name is
a typosquatted version of the Mark where Respondent substituted the letter ‘e’ from
FLINGSTER with the letter ‘w’.” ...The Panel may draw appropriate
inferences from the available evidence submitted by the Complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element, the Complainant must have relevant rights in a trademark and the disputed
domain name must be identical or confusingly similar to such trademark.
...
2022-12-05 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The Panel also finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s LINCOLN
ELECTRIC mark. Where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, the domain name will
normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing. ...
2025-08-04 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant must, firstly, 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.
...Finally, it is well accepted practice by UDRP panels that a TLD (such as ccTLD “.co” in this
case), is typically ignored when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a
trademark (see section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0). Accordingly, the Panel determines that the
disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
...
2022-08-22 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark and,
second, are the Disputed Domain Names identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. ...It is well established that a domain name that wholly incorporates a trademark is deemed confusingly similar
to that trademark for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of another term or abbreviation. ...
2022-06-03 - 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 domain name is identical
or confusingly similar to that trademark. ...Second, the registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a trademark by an entity that has no
relationship to that mark may be sufficient evidence of bad faith. ...
2022-04-06 - Case Details
It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, where appropriate, will decide consistent with the consensus views captured therein.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy it should be established that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...As a result, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to resolve to websites displaying the Complainant’s logo and offering unauthorized LPG services is further evidence that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.15.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark and that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is met in this case.
...
2022-03-02 - Case Details
In particular, the Complainant asserts that:
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
- The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered CSI LEASING trademark, in light of the fact that it substantially incorporates the Complainant’s mark.
...The Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the available evidence submitted by the Complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element, the Complainant must have trademark rights and the disputed domain name must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
...
2021-11-16 - 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 domain name is identical
or confusingly similar to that trademark. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant.
...
2022-09-23 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the HAVAIANAS trademark. The Panel finds that each Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to this trademark. 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” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2021-08-27 - Case Details
The Domain Name is identical or at least confusingly similar to the Complainant’s LANCÔME trademark.
The Domain Name differs from the Complainant’s trademark only by the absence of a circumflex accent on the letter “o” and the presence of the generic term “lady”. ...See sections 1.8 and 1.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the LANCÔME and LANCOME trademarks for the purposes of the Policy and thus paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been established.
...
2021-08-26 - Case Details
Having considered the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules, the Supplemental Rules and applicable principles of law, the Panel’s findings on each of the above cited elements are as follows.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires Complainant show that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has met its burden of showing that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to WHITEHALL SPECIALTIES Mark in which Complainant has valid subsisting trademark rights.
...
2021-06-04 - Case Details