A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark and, second, are the Disputed Domain Names identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. ...Thus, it is well established that 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.
...
2020-12-09 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under Rule 4(a)(i) the Complainant must show that the domain name at issue is “identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights”.
...D2006-1212, “‘[t]yposquatted’ domain names, if they have their desired effect, are by definition confusingly similar to trademarks”.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
...
2008-03-14 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark ALLEGRA, as the prefixes “buy” and “generic” are generic terms, which do not influence significantly the overall impression of the Domain Name which is dominated by the term ALLEGRA. ...It is well established that domain suffixes are disregarded for the purpose of this comparison.
The Domain Name is therefore confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ALLEGRA trademark.
The Panel concludes that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2004-12-23 - Case Details
Complainant
(1) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations, in the United States and throughout the world, for its TICKETMASTER marks. ...Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar because it includes Complainant's entire mark. The Panel agrees that, as a general matter, a domain name is likely to be deemed confusingly similar to a mark if it incorporates the mark or a variation of the mark. ...
2008-12-02 - Case Details
Having considered the Complaint and the available evidence, the Panel finds the following:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold inquiry – namely, whether a complainant has rights in a trade mark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trade mark.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2014-08-14 - Case Details
Therefore, the Complainant states that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name, , is confusingly similar to “Philip Morris” to which the Complainant has rights.
Furthermore, the Complainant declares that the disputed domain name, , which appends the term “.cloud” to “philipmorris” in the Top-Level Domain, is confusingly similar to PHILIP MORRIS. ...Thus, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to PHILIP MORRIS.
The Panel finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy have been met by the Complainant.
...
2016-09-01 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark and, second, is the Disputed Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
...Thus, it is well established that such element may generally be disregarded when assessing whether a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. Proactiva Medio Ambiente, S.A. v. Proactiva,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0182.
...
2017-07-06 - Case Details
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks GEBERIT.
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which it has rights. ...Michael Robertson,
WIPO Case No. D2000 0009).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is fulfilled.
...
2016-12-21 - Case Details
The Complainants submits that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known GRUNDFOS trademarks. The Complainant notes that the Disputed Domain Name is structurally and phonetically deceptively similar to the GRUNDFOS trademark. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has established registered rights in its GRUNDFOS trademark. ...
2017-08-10 - Case Details
page 3
The Complainant stated that:
a) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks, since it contains the trademark
CARREFOUR, entirely. It is also confusingly similar to its domain names, registered before 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...
2025-03-06 - Case Details
Therefore, the disputed domain name is confusingly
similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
For the reasons mentioned above, the Panel finds that the first element has been established.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-09-01 - Case Details
The Panel concludes that the disputed
domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trademarks ZENNI, ZENNI OPTICAL,
ZENNI.COM, and ZENNIOPTICAL.COM.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-07-28 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The evidence demonstrates that the Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations for KNIX in different
countries.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
As numerous prior UDRP panels have also recognized, the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety or a dominant feature of a trademark is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark. ...
2022-06-23 - Case Details
case=D2022-0488
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-1064.html
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2001/d2001-1425.html
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0009.html
page 3
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel agrees with Complainant’s allegation that the disputed domain name is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s INSTAGRAM trademarks.
...The Panel therefore rules that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s marks. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third
Edition, section 1.7 (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) (UDRP panels often determine that disputed domain names are
confusingly similar to a complainant’s marks where the disputed domain names fully incorporate a
complainant’s marks).
...
2022-11-14 - Case Details
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The inclusion of the entire LEGO trademark within the disputed domain name militates strongly against Respondent. ...The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LEGO trademark and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy have been satisfied.
...
2013-09-30 - Case Details
Having considered the Complaint and the available evidence, the Panel finds the following:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry – a threshold investigation into whether the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.
...The Panel has already found the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trade Mark. The Complainant submits evidence of screenshots of the web page(s) corresponding with the disputed domain name. ...
2013-09-26 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant has established trademark rights in LA-Z-BOY as evidenced by the trademark registrations submitted with the Complaint, as mentioned above.
...Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, a domain name is confusingly similar to a mark where the domain name fully incorporates the mark and simply adds a generic or geographically descriptive term that does not negate the confusing similarity. ...
2012-11-12 - Case Details
Where, as here, a Respondent is in default, the Panel may draw such inferences as it considers appropriate. Policy, paragraph 14(b).
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel agrees that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered trademark VALET WASTE, as it contains Complainant’s registered mark in its entirety, and is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered trademark VALET WASTE, INC, because the designation “INC.” adds no distinctiveness to Complainant’s trademark and therefore the disputed domain name incorporates the distinctive portion of this mark in its entirety. Adding the letters “ww” before “valetwaste” fails to distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s trademark for purposes of determining whether they are identical or confusingly similar. Edmunds.com Inc. v. Wan-Fu China, Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0339 (finding the domain name confusingly similar to EDMUND’S), Sanofi-Aventis v. ...
2010-10-26 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks CASINO DE MONTE-CARLO and CASINO DE MONACO. ...The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark CASINO DE MONACO.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2010-07-20 - Case Details
The registration of a confusingly similar domain name despite such actual or constructive knowledge, without more, evidences bad faith registration within the meaning of the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii).
...These elements are discussed in turn below.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There is no dispute that the Complainant has registered rights in relation to MONTBLANC, including on the principal register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. ...
2013-07-19 - Case Details