Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainants’ SPIKEVAX Mark
in which Complainants possess valid trademark rights under the UDRP. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-11-14 - Case Details
[A screen print of the home page of Respondent's web site as of October 19, 2009 was attached to the Complaint.]
The Domain Name is Confusingly Similar to Costco's Registered Trademarks
Respondent's Domain Name is confusingly similar to Costco's COSTCO trademarks. ...There is no doubt, in the Panel's, opinion that is confusingly similar to COSTCO in the present circumstances.
The Panel therefore finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to an earlier trademark in which the Complainants have rights, and the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are met.
...
2010-01-15 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant makes the following assertions:
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s VAN CLEEF & ARPELS marks, because it fully incorporates the VAN CLEEF & ARPELS marks, but contains a typographical error in “vanclef,” omits the non-essential element (the ampersand), and adds the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
...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 domain name incorporates a complainant’s registered trademark, this may be sufficient to establish that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2014-01-17 - Case Details
Complainant states that the relevant inquiry under Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) concerns whether the Domain
Name is confusingly similar to the OANDA mark. Complainant contends that incorporating a complainant's
registered trademark into a disputed domain name is sufficient without anything more to establish that the
domain name is 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...
2022-08-04 - Case Details
As the Respondent did not file a Response or otherwise reply to the Complainant's contentions, the Panel shall decide the Complaint on the basis of the Complainant's submissions and such inferences that can be reasonably drawn from the failure to submit a Response as the Panel considers applicable (Rules, paragraph 14(b)).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complaint submits that the disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the names and trademarks in which the Complainant has extensive rights. ...Whether a domain name which incorporates a complainant's trademark together with a prefix or suffix is confusingly similar to the trade mark has been considered in a great 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. ...
2010-08-06 - Case Details
This requirement asks whether the Respondents domain is identical or confusingly similar to the marks of the Complainant.
The Complainant makes no claim as to identity between the domain name and its marks, but rather asserts that the domain name in issue is confusingly similar to the DIGITAL CITY marks. ...The presence of other SLDs using the "digitalcity" expression does not, as an empirical matter, say much about whether "digitalcitymap.com" is confusingly similar. All of the other SLDs might be confusingly similar also – though of course I am making no conclusions about these marks, since they are not in issue in this matter. ...
2000-11-14 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Further, the gTLD “.xyz” is a standard registration requirement and does not prevent the disputed domain
name from being confusingly similar to the SYNGENTA Trademark.
Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trademark for the purposes of the
Policy.
...
2025-06-18 - Case Details
The Complainants claim that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the registered and unregistered M88 and M88.COM trademarks in which the Complainants have rights. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To satisfy the first UDRP element, a domain name must be “identical or confusingly similar” to a trademark, in which a complainant has rights. ...
2015-02-27 - Case Details
To satisfy the test, the trademark to which the domain name is said to be identical or confusingly similar would generally need to be recognisable as such within the domain name. The addition of common, dictionary, descriptive, or negative terms are usually regarded as insufficient to prevent Internet user confusion. ...As numerous prior UDRP panels have recognized, the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety in a domain name may be sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered mark. The addition of other generic terms in the domain name does not affect a finding that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered trademark (Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. ...
2014-01-09 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant submitted evidence, which incontestably and conclusively establishes rights in the
trademark WHATSAPP.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-11-24 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant, under the first requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, needs to establish that the
disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark in which it 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...
2023-06-27 - Case Details
Michael Robertson, WIPO Case No. D2000-0009).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel agrees with Complainant’s allegations that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to
Complainant’s IBM marks.
...This renders beyond dispute that Respondent sought to exploit Complainant’s
trademark through registration of the confusingly similar disputed domain names, and the Panel so finds.
The Panel holds therefore that Respondent registered the disputed domain names in bad faith. ...
2023-09-20 - Case Details
Therefore, according to Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with Complainant’s
trademarks CLIPS4SALE.COM and CLIPS4SALE, fulfilling 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...
2024-03-18 - 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, is the Disputed Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
...Moreover, the registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a well-known registered trademark by an entity that has no relationship to that mark may be sufficient evidence of bad faith registration and use. ...
2016-10-28 - Case Details
Robertson,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0009.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has submitted copies of its trademark registration for MYHOSTING in Canada and the EU. ...Thus, as the domain name incorporates the entirety of Complainant’s mark, it is sufficiently similar to be confusingly similar to that mark.
The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has satisfied the first prong of the test.
...
2008-07-29 - Case Details
The Policy sets out examples of circumstances that may evidence a Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, see, Policy, Paragraph 4(c), as well as circumstances that may evidence a Respondent’s bad faith registration and use, see Policy, Paragraph 4(b).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant must establish that the disputed domain name is either identical or confusingly similar to its mark.
...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
As noted above, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ALLIANT CREDIT UNION mark. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that Respondent’s site would attract visitors who are actually seeking Complainant.
...
2007-10-03 - Case Details
The Panel will not, therefore, consider the .mobi tld when assessing whether is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark for “PLAYBOY”, “PLAYBOY MOBILE” and “PLAYBOY MOBILE TV”.
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark and that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
...
2007-09-26 - Case Details
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark, arguing that name incorporates in full the mark along with the descriptive term “maps”. ...Ang Wa Assoc.,
WIPO Case No. 2004-0535 (September 29, 2004) (finding the domain name to be confusingly similar to the trademark, USAA).
For the reasons stated above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proved that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2007-08-28 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to its WIKIPEDIA mark and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names.
...What is clear, however, is that the Domain Names themselves are confusingly similar to the widely known WIKIPEDIA mark, and that the Respondent used the Domain Names to bring visitors to his own website, which was designed with a remarkably similar “look and feel” to the Complainant's websites, including copied logos and typefaces. ...
2010-04-27 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...The result is that the Complainant has shown that the above disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant had shown that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2010-03-17 - Case Details