A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name is “identical or
confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights”.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name is “identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights”.
...
2023-02-20 - Case Details
Whether a domain name that incorporates a Complainant’s trademark together with a prefix or suffix is confusingly similar to the trademark has been considered in a number of UDRP decisions. It has been held that a domain name consisting of the Complainant’s trademark and ending with the “.com” gTLD is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark (see Sanofi-Aventis v. ...The Panel has had little difficulty in finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark NESTLE, as the additional elements are, in a trademark sense, banal.
...
2011-03-07 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainants contend that the disputed domain name and the CHEVRON trademark are confusingly
similar.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under the first element, the Complainants must establish that the disputed domain name is identical, or
confusingly similar to, the Complainants’ trademark rights.
...
2023-10-12 - Case Details
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.” See L’Oréal v. See PrivacyGuardian.org/ CvxzvDFS Dfdsafds,
WIPO Case No. ...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. ...
2021-11-17 - Case Details
D2001-0381 (May 4, 2001) (“ewallstjournal” found confusingly
similar to the WALL STREET JOURNAL mark, despite the use of the abbreviation
“st” for “street”); Microsoft Corporation v. ...D2000-1568
(January 25, 2001) ( found confusingly similar to
the MICROSOFT OFFICE 2000 mark because “MS” is commonly used as
shorthand for “Microsoft”).
...
2005-02-08 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), the Complainant shall prove that the Disputed Domain Name is
identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark 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...
2023-08-10 - 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
WhoisGuard Protected / Andrey Molodavkin,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1604( found confusingly similar to CVS Marks): Facebook, Inc. v. Daniel Khrayzat,
WIPO Case No. D2019-2813 ( and found confusingly similar to FACEBOOK mark).
...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. ...
2021-07-12 - Case Details
case=D2016-1605
page 5
Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that a domain name may be 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. ...In other words, Respondent has, through the use of a
confusingly similar disputed domain name, created a likelihood of confusion with the CRACKER BARREL
marks. ...
2023-05-23 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names and the BMW trademark are confusingly similar.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under the first element, the Complainant must establish that the disputed domain names are identical with,
or confusingly similar to, the Complainant’s trademark rights.
...
2023-05-19 - Case Details
D2006-1475 (finding ,new-adobe.net> confusingly similar to complainant's ADOBE mark); see also LEGO Juris A/S v. Ranan Lachman,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0915 (finding confusingly similar to complainant's LEGO mark).
Lastly, it is well settled that the use of the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com" is not significant in determining whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. ...
2014-12-18 - Case Details
The Panel’s determination and assessment is based solely on the Policy.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainants claim to have common law or unregistered rights in WILLEM VEDOVI and VEDOVI.
...This is because these Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainants’ GALERIE VEDOVI mark and they do not include any additional word or term that may identify themselves as resolving to a criticism website. ...
2014-08-04 - Case Details
A complainant must prove each of these three elements to succeed.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant clearly has rights in the COSTCO (and other related) trademarks for the purposes of the Policy.
...The issue is whether the addition of the term “business” renders the Domain Name something other than confusingly similar to the Complainant’s COSTCO mark. COSTCO is the first and dominant element of the Domain Name. ...
2015-09-18 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has submitted detailed evidence that it is the owner of the BMW 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. ...
2017-03-30 - 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
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