In the text, the Complainant asserts that the domain name at issue is “very similar” and “confusingly similar” to the Complainant's trademarks in the light of the fact that it incorporates its trademark in its entirety.
...The Respondent, having failed to respond in these proceedings, is in default and the Panel shall draw such appropriate inferences therefrom.
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.
...
2010-07-01 - Case Details
See Paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant must establish that the disputed domain name is either identical or confusingly similar to its mark.
...See Paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. As noted above, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. Visitors to the site were presented with what appear to be links related to the same or similar services. ...
2006-12-01 - Case Details
The Panel finds that this Domain Name is confusingly similar to trade marks and service marks in which the Complainant has rights.
The Second Domain Name . ...This Domain Name is not identical to the Complainant’s trade mark, but is it confusingly similar to it?
In the trade mark context the term "confusingly similar" refers to confusion as to trade origin. ...
2001-09-24 - Case Details
Complainant further contends that the Domain Names are identical with and confusingly similar to the trademark pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
Respondents have not contested the assertions by Complaint that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Trademarks.
...Accordingly, the Sole Panelist finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant's Trademarks.
Respondents’ Domain Names "nfospace.com", "infoospace.com", "infospacer.com" and "infospacers.com" are also confusingly similar to Complainant's INFOSPACE mark are clearly misleading. ...
2001-04-06 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been met and the Domain Name should be transferred.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The sign "houshiboss" is confusingly similar to the Complainant's HUGO BOSS trade mark. ...Taken on its own the elements, "houshi" and "hugo" would not be considered similar, however the comparison of the Domain Name and trade mark as a whole especially given the independent distinctive significance of the element BOSS, renders the Domain Name to be confusingly similar to the HUGO BOSS trade mark as well. ...
2016-01-18 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...In such circumstances, it
may be said that the respondent himself evidently believed the domain name to be confusingly similar to the
complainant’s mark, else he would not have registered that domain name. Put another way, in such
circumstances the respondent has conceded that the domain name is confusingly similar to the subject
trademark.
...
2024-07-05 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Furthermore, the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is viewed as a standard
registration requirement and as such is disregarded for the purpose of determining whether a domain name
is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark.
An earlier UDRP decision has acknowledged that a similar disputed domain name was confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark (WIPO Case No. ...
2024-12-26 - 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...
2025-05-26 - 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 MILLIMAN
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. ...
2024-10-11 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that;
a) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the
Complainant has rights.
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name creates a likelihood of
confusion as it is aurally to the Complainant’s highly similar registered SKYSCANNER trademarks. ...Moreover, addition of term “shop” is not sufficient to eliminate the similarity since
it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”). Considering the confusingly similar
trademarks and identity of the Complainant’s business, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar.
...
2025-03-11 - Case Details
Policy, paragraph 4(a).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based upon the trademark registrations cited by Complainant it is apparent that Complainant has rights in and to the AAA Trademark. ...D2011-1017 (finding the domain name confusingly similar to the trademark GUCCI).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has proven the first element of the Policy.
...
2012-10-12 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.3 The Complainant has produced sufficient evidence of ownership of trademark registrations namely, German, Community and International trademark registrations in the words JACK WOLFSKIN which was attached to the Complaint. ...Huang Yan Jin, supra cited by the Complainant where in similar circumstances the disputed domain name in that case was held to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark by reason of incorporating entirely the Complainant’s trademark JACK WOLFSKIN despite the additional letter “e” in the disputed domain name.
6.4 Accordingly, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established that the disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark in accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP Policy.
...
2012-08-31 - Case Details
Policy, paragraph 4(a).)
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Given Complainant’s trademark registrations and long use of the AAA trademarks in the United States and worldwide, the Panel finds that Complainant has trademark rights in the AAA mark.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. Accordingly, the Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
...
2013-01-08 - Case Details
Furthermore, in making an enquiry as to whether a trade mark is identical or confusingly similar to a domain name, the domain extension, in this case “.com” should be disregarded (see Rohde & Schwarz GmbH & Co. ...There is no plausible explanation as to how the Respondent could have come up with the confusingly similar Disputed Domain Name but to suggest an association with the Complainant’s mark and business.
...
2013-07-03 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain names are all confusingly similar to at least one of the Complainant’s trade marks (as listed in Factual Background above). ...However, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondents' default.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade marks.
...
2015-02-02 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the Domain Name is identical of confusingly similar to its DANONE trademark. The Complainant claims it owns numerous trademark registrations in the DANONE trademark across the world. ...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
Accordingly, the Panel has allowed the Complaint to proceed in the name of both Complainants.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must demonstrate both that it “has rights” in a mark, and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that mark.
...The issue then is whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar. The Complainant says that the Respondent has, essentially, registered an amalgam of its marks.
...
2013-12-13 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel considers the disputed domain name clearly consists of a combination of the Complainants’ trademarks. ...The Respondent has chosen to use a disputed domain name confusingly similar to the Complainants’ marks in their entirety without authorization from the Complainants. ...
2014-01-28 - Case Details
Complainant contends the Disputed Domain Name is similar in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression to its Mark, and thus is confusingly similar to Complainant's PLAYBOY Mark. ...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 a Complainant's registered mark. AT&T Corp. v. William Gormally, Case No. D2005-0758 (finding confusingly similar to ATT); Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. ...
2014-06-23 - Case Details
The Complainant submits the grounds for these proceedings listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its VOITH trademarks. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Policy simply requires the Complainant to demonstrate that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. ...
2016-02-16 - Case Details