Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that a domain name is 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 summary, Respondent, by choosing to register and use a domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s internationally known trademarks, intended to disrupt Complainant’s business. ...
2017-08-01 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, there are two requirements which the Complainant must establish, first that it has rights in a trademark or service mark, and second that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark.
...On the basis of facts and circumstance discussed above the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the CHATROULETTE trademark of the Complainant and that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2018-04-11 - Case Details
Therefore, the Panel rules that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks. See, Coutts & Co. v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Anne Wells,
WIPO Case No. ...D2013-1246 (where was found to be confusingly similar to the MERRILL EDGE mark).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has shown successfully that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2018-01-22 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer
of the Disputed Domain Name and that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a
trademark or service mark, in which the Complainant has rights.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
Notably, the Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s registered trademark AXA, in which the Complainant has rights, noting that its AXA trademark
is famous and notorious.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2025-09-05 - Case Details
Indeed, previous panels have found that domain names containing a complainant’s trademark
plus the number “999” – as is the case here – are confusingly similar to the trademark. See, e.g., Novartis
AG v. 陈� (Chen Han), WIPO Case No. D2024-5053 (finding confusingly similar to
KISQALI); Newcote International Limited v. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-08-12 - 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
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 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
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...
2025-05-28 - Case Details
The Panel determines that the disputed domain name is confusingly
similar to Complainant’s CINTAS trademark.
Complainant has established that it owns rights in the trademark CINTAS, and that the disputed domain
name is confusingly similar to that trademark.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has provided evidence of rights in the trademark CINTAS, including by registration at the USPTO and by use in commerce. ...
2022-11-07 - Case Details
It is well established that domain names which consist
of a trade mark are considered to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for the purposes of the first
element regardless of the nature of any added terms. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
D. Rights or Legitimate Interests
E. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-09-13 - Case Details
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the disputed domain name is confusingly
similar to the Complainant’s mark. Therefore, the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is met.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-09-12 - 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...
2022-04-05 - Case Details
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the disputed domain name is confusingly
similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has established rights according to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the
Policy.
...The Panel finds that such use of the
disputed domain name, confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, certainly does not amount to a
bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. ...
2022-05-31 - Case Details
Considering these requirements, the Panel rules as follows:
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. ...It is also evidenced that the Respondent’s website offers services confusingly similar to those offered by the
Complainant and directly reproduces the Complainant’s CANVA trademark. ...
2022-04-22 - 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
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the HOLIDAY INN trademark and the HOLIDAY INN RESORTS trademark.
The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to each of these trademarks. 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. ...
2022-10-25 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant sets out in the Amended Complaint that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or
confusingly similar to the marks COMFORT KEEPERS in which the Complainant has rights.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-06-13 - Case Details
Complainant
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. The disputed
domain name identically adopts the Complainant’s 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...
2022-07-07 - Case Details
Turning to whether the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trademark, the Panel
observes that the Domain Name comprises: (a) an exact reproduction of the Trademark, i.e. ...case=D2013-0585
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Case No. DNL2022-0020
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith...
2022-06-27 - Case Details