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
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in The JASON HARTMAN trademark.
The 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. ...
2018-10-03 - Case Details
In the instant case, there are various reasons for holding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
Firstly, the addition of a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) in the instant case is well recognized by WIPO UDRP decisions as being “completely without legal significance”, taken by itself, in demonstrating whether a disputed domain in confusingly similar to a Complainant’s Mark. ...D2000-1219, “points of similarity are weighed more heavily than points of difference” in determining whether a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark. (finding the domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s POKEMON trademark). ...
2018-07-18 - Case Details
The omission of a letter has been found to be confusingly similar, as an example of typo-squatting, and is not sufficient to differentiate the domain name from the Complainant’s trademark. ...Applying this test to the domain name is not a “dictionary word”, or generic or descriptive. It is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s distinctive mark.
Respondent has made no good faith efforts to avoid registering and using a domain name identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. ...
2008-06-25 - Case Details
Policy, paragraph 4(a).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Domain Names at issue are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...Finally, gTLDs and CCTLDS
shall be disregarded in the analysis as to whether a domain name and a trademark
are identical or confusingly similar. Thus the “.com” and the “.net”
in the Domain Names should be disregarded for this purpose. ...
2006-07-18 - Case Details
D2002-0439 (ordering transfer of and
because confusingly similar to ); Pfizer Inc. v. Phizer's
Antiques, Case No. D2002-0410 (ordering
transfer of because confusingly similar to Pfizer); OfficeMax,
Inc. v. ...D2002-0354
(ordering transfer of because confusingly similar to OFFICEMAX);
Time Warner Entertainment Co. v. Zuccarini, WIPO
Case No. D2001-0184 (ordering transfer of , ,
because confusingly similar to Harry Potter, Looney Tunes,
and Scooby-Doo).
...
2003-07-09 - Case Details
Namerental.com (D2001-0060) (Finding
that the domain name was confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
"GOOGLE" mark), see also American Airlines, Inc. v. Zuccarini
(FA0009000095695) (finding that the domain name
was confusingly similar to the Complainant’s "AMERICAN AIRLINES" mark).
As stated in a WIPO decision, "mere additions of minor misspellings to
a Complainant’s mark do not create a new or different mark with which a Respondent
has rights; it results in a domain name that is confusingly similar."
America Online Inc. v. Zuccarini (D2000-1495).
The Panel finds that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s
LIPITOR mark.
...
2003-04-29 - Case Details
It is well-established
under the Policy that a domain name composed of a trademark coupled with a generic
term still is confusingly similar to the trademark (compare: NAF Case No. 141825
– ; WIPO Case No. D2002-0367
– )...There is a domain like
not owned by the Complainant and still operates.
REGARDING ‘Domain name is identical or confusingly similar to trademarks in
which Complainant has rights’
As mentioned above, T-Online tv is only trademarked in Germany. ...
2003-11-26 - Case Details
The fame of the Complainant's mark has been enhanced greatly by the amount of online investment committed to it by the Complainant, and is attested to by the many prior cybersquatters that have attempted to infringe upon it through the registration of confusingly similar domain names.
The disputed domain name, , is confusingly similar to the EBAY mark. ...A consensus of prior UDRP decisions has found that such minor distinctions do not prevent a disputed domain name from being, if not identical, at least confusingly similar to an established mark. Therefore, the Panel determines that the disputed domain name, , is confusingly similar to the Complainant's EBAY service mark. ...
2015-06-01 - Case Details
D2005-0728 ("Domain names which differ from a trademark by only minor variations have a greater tendency to be confusingly similar to the trademark where the trademark is highly distinctive"); and Reuters Limited v. Global Net 2000, Inc,
WIPO Case No. ...Therefore, the Panel concludes that is also confusingly similar to both the LATEROOMS and LATEROOMS.COM marks.
As a result, the Panel finds that the Complainant has shown that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2016-07-11 - Case Details
Respondent registered the confusingly similar Domain Name that includes the ZIONS Mark and ZIONS DIRECT Mark. ...The Domain Name , wholly incorporates the ZIONS BANK Mark thus, it is confusingly similar to that Mark. Adding the elements “email-” and “pf” to the ZIONS BANK Mark do not diminish the confusing similarity with the Domain Name. ...
2017-07-03 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first 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...
2025-07-21 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s trademark. The disputed domain names are highly similar to the earlier well-known
Complainant’s trademark. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-10-08 - 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...
2025-03-21 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The Complainant makes the following contentions:
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is virtually identical or at least confusingly similar to its well-known and widely recognized trademark, KIEHL’S. ...
2025-03-12 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first 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...
2025-03-11 - 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.
...
2025-04-03 - 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 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.
...
2025-04-03 - Case Details
The
Complainant must still prove each of the three elements required by Policy paragraph 4(a)”).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Ownership of a nationally or regionally registered trademark serves as prima facie evidence that
Complainant has trademark rights for the purposes of standing to file this Complaint. ...The only remaining question under the first element of the Policy is whether the disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s FENWICK trademark. In this Complaint, the disputed
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s FENWICK trademark because, disregarding the “.com”
generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), the trademark is contained in its entirety within the disputed domain
name. ...
2022-05-03 - Case Details
Accordingly, the WIPO Overview 3.0 at 1.9 states that: “A domain name which consists of a common,
obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the
relevant mark for purposes of the first element.” The disputed domain name must be considered confusingly
similar to the Trademark in that it is similar to such trademark in both sight and sound. ...It is well established that seeking to profit from
the sale of a confusingly similar domain name that incorporates a third party’s trademark demonstrates bad
faith. The panel in Groupe Auchan v. ...
2022-04-12 - Case Details