The first Complainant alleges that the first domain name, , is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark HOTMAIL in which it has rights, that the Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interest in the first domain name, and that the first domain name is registered and being used in bad faith by the Respondent. ...The second Complainant alleges that the second domain name, , is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark MSNBC, in which it has rights, that the Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interest in the second domain name, and that the second domain name is registered and being used in bad faith by the Respondent. ...
2002-08-27 - Case Details
D2002-0439 (ordering transfer of
and because confusingly similar to );
Pfizer Inc. v. Phizer’s Antiques, WIPO 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).
...
2002-10-01 - Case Details
D2000-0869 (September 25, 2000), ( confusingly
similar to mark ESTEE LAUDER); Nicole Kidman v. John Zuccarini, d/b/a Cupcake
Party, WIPO Case No. D2000-1415 (January 23, 2001)
( confusingly similar to mark NICOLE KIDMAN).
Complainant has met the requirement of Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2003-03-20 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has submitted to the Panel evidence of registrations for its XHAMSTER service mark with the BOIP, ABIPCO and EUIPO. ...D2017-0408 (finding to be confusingly similar to the CHATROULETTE mark).
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2021-01-26 - 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 domain name is identical
or confusingly similar to that trademark. ...Thus, it is well
established that, as here, such element may typically be disregarded when assessing whether a domain
name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. See Proactiva Medio Ambiente, S.A. v. Proactiva,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0182 and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.
...
2023-02-13 - Case Details
John Alli, WIPO Case No. D2004-0637, (finding
confusingly similar to the CREDIT SUISSE mark); and ZipRecruiter, Inc. v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o
Dynadot, WIPO Case No. ...Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
JACQUEMUS trademark.
The Panel finds that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is met.
...
2023-09-01 - Case Details
The Panel considers that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to KPMG trademark.
Moreover, the Respondent registered and then used the disputed domain name to perpetrate an email scam
or phishing scheme.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-08-23 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established that it is the owner of various registrations for the Trademark.
...The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.org” is a standard registration requirement and does not prevent
the Domain Name from being confusingly similar to the Trademark (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1).
The Panel therefore finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademark. ...
2023-11-24 - Case Details
It is well accepted by UDRP panels that a gTLD, such as “.com”, is typically ignored
when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. See section
1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. Therefore, the Panel is of the view that the disputed domain name is
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-10-23 - Case Details
Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark
under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 4
B. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2023-09-26 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant clearly holds relevant ownership rights in the trademark ALSTOM, as demonstrated by the
registered trademarks enumerated in section 4. ...The Respondent clearly set out to target the Complainant, to deceive users into believing that its
confusingly similar disputed domain name was in fact associated with the Complainant, to thereby attract
Internet traffic for commercial gain.
...
2023-09-25 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP, the Complainant must demonstrate that the disputed domain
name is (i) identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, (ii) in which the Complainant 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...
2023-06-23 - 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...
2024-01-09 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant argued the following:
I. Identical or Confusingly Similar
That the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SLACK 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...
2023-11-30 - 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 domain name is identical
or confusingly similar to that trademark. ...Thus, the Panel concludes
that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s EQUINOR Mark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the
Complainant.
...
2022-12-08 - 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
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
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. ...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
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