Moreover, the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP
Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) and, where appropriate, will decide consistent with the
consensus views captured therein.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy it should be established that the disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar to a mark 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...
2023-06-07 - 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
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-04-04 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...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. ...
2024-03-26 - Case Details
The Complaint includes the following contentions:
(i) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the deletion of the letter “l” in the trademark and the addition of term
“CREDIT” to the trademark BOLLORE and the gTLD suffix “.com” is not sufficient to escape the finding that
the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant submits sufficient evidence for its registered trademark in several jurisdictions through its
International registration. ...
2024-07-10 - Case Details
In the present case, the Panel notes that Respondent has registered the disputed domain name that is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks STOKO and/or STOKOMANI, as explained above in section
6.A. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-09-11 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant holds several trademarks for CELLTRION. These trademarks are registered for various
services in many jurisdictions. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-11-14 - Case Details
Webs Pulse and Sohail Habib, WIPO Case D2026-1609,
finding domain names and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
SLIDESHARE trademark; and Scribd, Inc. v. Jahanzaib khan, JahaSoft, Tahseen Kiani, WIPO Case D2025-
3300, finding domain names and confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s SLIDESHARE 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...
2026-10-01 - 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
These words do not serve to prevent the disputed domain names from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s PRINCIPAL service marks.
The Complainant also says that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain names. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has produced evidence of its trade and service mark registrations for PRINCIPAL as well as a number of variants in which “PRINCIPAL” is the primary component. ...
2018-10-02 - Case Details
Incorporation of the BROWNRUDNICK Mark is sufficient to establish that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the BROWNRUDNICK Mark.
Complainant further alleges that the Disputed Domain Name is identical and confusingly similar to the BROWNRUDNICK Mark and that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...Complainant further contends that the Disputed Domain Name is identical with and confusingly similar to the BROWNRUDNICK Mark pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
Numerous UDRP decisions have recognized that incorporating a trademark in its entirety can be sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark. ...
2018-09-25 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, whether the Complainant has rights in a relevant trademark and, second, whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
...The Respondent registered the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, GRAINGER, with the knowledge of the Complainant’s famous business and its trademark.
...
2020-09-03 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the RECON 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. ...
2019-04-12 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the CASINO DE MONTE-CARLO 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. ...
2019-07-12 - Case Details
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s AFTON CHEMICAL trademark. It states that the reversing of the letters “i” and “e” and resulting misspelling of Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name does not serve to differentiate it from the AFTON CHEMICAL trademark, and that the disputed domain name is a classic example of “typosquatting” whereby a widely known mark is intentionally misspelled in order to create a domain name that is confusingly similar to the real name. ...The Respondent has used the disputed domain name to create an email address confusingly similar to the AFTON CHEMICAL trademark so as to impersonate the Complainant and fraudulently solicit payment from the Complainant’s customer. ...
2019-07-10 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the COLOPLAST 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. ...
2020-06-09 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to that of the H&M trademark. It is widely recognised, that the use of the ampersand “&” cannot be reflected in domain names. ...D2001-0110, stating “The incorporation of a Complainant’s well-known trademark in the registered Domain Name is considered sufficient to find the Domain Name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.”
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first requirement that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark, under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2020-06-03 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfactorily proven that it has registered trademark rights for KIMLEY-HORN.
...D2001-0110, stating “The incorporation of a Complainant’s well-known trademark in the registered Domain Name is considered sufficient to find the Domain Name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.”
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first requirement that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark, under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2020-05-14 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark or trademarks and, second, is the Disputed Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to those trademarks.
...It is well established that a domain name that wholly incorporates a trademark is confusingly similar to that trademark for purposes of the Policy. See Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2019-07-26 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the SALESFORCE 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. ...
2019-11-01 - Case Details