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
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
For the foregoing reasons, the Panel considers that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered trademark property of the Complainant, being both the Complainant's mark and the registered domain name by the Respondent, phonetically and visually confusingly similar, once the specific top level is taken away. ...Nor it entitles the Respondent to be vested with any rights to register a confusingly similar expression of the Complainant's mark as a domain name.
This issue has been addressed by other Administrative Panels, where the fact of a party having various domain names bearing a trademark are not sufficient reason for preventing it from being able to register a confusingly similar variation of the mark. ...
2004-05-13 - Case Details
Respondent
The Complainant’s claim that the disputed domain name, and by inference the term “ABC Store”, is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark ABC SHOP, is disputed. The words “store” and “shop” are dictionary words that have similar meanings but the Respondent disputes that they are confusingly similar. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the ABC SHOP trademark.
...
2021-04-06 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or confusingly similar:
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its CARREFOUR and BANQUE CARREFOUR well-known trademarks because it imitates them.
...D2012-2001).
Besides the disputed domain name is also confusingly similar to the well-known CARREFOUR trademark.
As indicated above, the removing of the letter “r” is almost unnoticeable.
...
2019-06-21 - Case Details
International Electronic Communications Inc., WIPO
Case No. D2000-0270.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar
to Complainant’s AMAZON mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the
Policy. ...D2005-1131 ( confusingly similar to GEICO)....
2006-07-11 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the SUPERCUTS trademark. The Panel finds 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. ...
2025-11-14 - Case Details
The evidence submitted by the Complainant also supports the conclusion that the disputed domain name is
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s GILEAD mark. As set forth in WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7,
when the entirety of a mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name, or “at least a dominant feature
of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name,” the disputed domain name is deemed confusingly
similar to the mark for the purposes 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...
2026-01-27 - Case Details
The Panel will therefore proceed to analyze whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are
established.
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...
2026-07-03 - Case Details
Several
panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a disputed domain name that is identical or
confusingly similar to a widely known trade mark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption
of bad faith. ...So, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes
regarding the nominally different disputed domain names.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2026-09-24 - Case Details
The Complainant essentially contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s intensively used trademarks, as it incorporates the most distinctive part of the Complainant’s
ONLYFANS trademark, with the addition of the merely descriptive words “site rip” to the disputed domain
name. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
registered trademarks for ONLYFANS, and concludes that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of
the first element under the Policy.
...
2023-04-14 - Case Details
Complainant further contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the DEWBERRY
Mark.
Section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 says that inclusion of the entire trademark in a domain name will be
considered confusingly similar. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-04-24 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in the Complainant’s Trademark based on the trademark
registration listed above in Section 4.
...As such, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
Trademark, and accordingly, paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2023-03-28 - Case Details
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 MOFO trademark.
In this Complaint, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MOFO trademark
because, disregarding the “.com” generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), the entirety of the trademark is
contained within the disputed domain name. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-03-22 - Case Details
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark
LAMBORGHINI, since it reproduces it in its entirety and is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name.
...Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark of the
Complainant and that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2023-03-21 - Case Details
As such, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
Trademark, and accordingly, paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-02-28 - Case Details
D2022-0723 (finding to be confusingly similar to the
VARENGOLD mark).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proved that the disputed domain name is identical or
confusingly similar to a service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...The Parties
A. Complainant
B. Respondent
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith...
2023-03-09 - 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 TETRA PAK
trademark, 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.
...
2023-11-16 - Case Details
Further, according to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences from the
Respondent’s failure to submit a Response as it considers appropriate.
A. 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, trademark rights of the Complainant.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-09-11 - Case Details
Complainant
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The disputed
domain name fully incorporates the well-known Complainant’s trademark and is confusingly similar to such
mark. ...The
Panel finds that the addition of the terms “Holland” and “bv” to the disputed domain name does not prevent
finding it confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
Considering the above the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademark, therefore, the Complainant has established its case under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2023-08-01 - Case Details