However, as noted above, the Panel has determined that it is appropriate to draw adverse inferences from Respondent’s default.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant must first establish that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
...Given that the dominant portion of the Domain Name is “hilltop”, and that the other portions of the Domain Name do not distinguish the Domain Name from the HILLTOP Mark, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the HILLTOP Mark for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
(iv) Conclusion: Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the Complainant’s Marks, and that the Domain Name is identical to the HILLTOP MALL Mark and is confusingly similar to the HILLTOP Mark. ...
2006-03-21 - Case Details
page 3
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Factual Background
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith...
2025-11-19 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that the respondent was likely aware of the Complainant’s trademark rights when it
registered a confusingly similar domain name and began operating a website that provides products and
services in direct competition with the Complainant. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2026-06-02 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant claims that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its FOSROC trademark because
there is one letter difference between the dominant element of the Domain Name and the Complainant’s
registered mark.
...The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s FOSROC trademark. It is
well established that “[a] domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a
trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first
element”.1 Here, the Domain Name consists of the typo variant of the FOSROC trademark, where the
Complainant’s mark contains two letters “r” instead of one “r”, and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”)
“.com”. ...
2023-08-18 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
As set forth in section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third
Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) the standing test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively
straightforward comparison between the trademark and the disputed domain name to determine whether the
disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the trademark. ...Complainant
(iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
7. Decision...
2023-06-16 - Case Details
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.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-09-13 - Case Details
The Panel will proceed to analyze whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied in
this proceeding.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant must first of all establish rights in a trademark or
service mark and secondly that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark or
service 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...
2022-03-22 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant alleges to have earlier trademark rights over SPORTPURSUIT and notes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its marks as it only differs by the transposition of the letters “u” and “i” (in “pursuit”). ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant showed that it has trademark rights in SPORTPURSUIT through the above-referenced European Union and UK trademark registrations.
...
2021-10-11 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant maintains that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the INSTAGRAM mark as it reproduces the letters “nstagram” preceded by the lowercase letter “l”, which is closely similar to the capital letter “I”. ...Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark INSTAGRAM. ...
2022-02-16 - 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, 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
The failure of the Complainant to prove any one of these elements means the Complaint must be denied.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant is the owner of, and therefore has rights in, the Mark.
Section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) provides that “[a] domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element”.
The Panel accepts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Mark. ...
2020-02-24 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant asserts that it has a common law trademark in the OPPLOANS Mark and has applied for registration.
...The addition of other non-distinctive terms such as "reviews" in the Disputed Domain Name does not affect a finding that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the OPPLOANS Mark pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2016-09-16 - Case Details
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainants have provided evidence of registrations of its marks in several jurisdictions, including registrations which predate the registration of the disputed domain names. ...The Panel also finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainants’ marks. “The incorporation of a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainants’ registered mark.” ...
2017-01-23 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant alleges that the Disputed Domain Names fully incorporate common or obvious misspellings of the Complainant’s trademark. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the owner of the GEICO trademark as evidenced by its trademark registration. ...
2019-01-16 - 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
Accordingly, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered SPECIALISED IMAGING trademark.
Rights and Legitimate Interests
The Complainant submits that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. ...The Panel further finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s common law trademark SPECIALISED IMAGING. The addition of the “.com” designation does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s common law trademark.
...
2013-07-29 - Case Details
The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark seeing that it incorporates the Complainant's trademark ACCUTANE in its entirety. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant does have trademark rights in the ACCUTANE mark with reference to the trademark registrations.
...
2015-11-16 - Case Details
a. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The inclusion of the entire LANCEL mark within the disputed domain names militates strongly against Respondent. ...The Panel concludes that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s LANCEL mark and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy have been satisfied.
...
2013-10-10 - Case Details
Complainant
Confusing similarity
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademarks GROUP 4 SECURICOR and G4S GROUP 4 SECURICOR as it reproduces the word “securicor” in its entirety with only the addition of the ccTLD ‘.tv’.
...A complainant must prove each of these three elements.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name is not identical to the Complainant’s mark so it is necessary to consider whether it is confusingly similar. ...
2011-11-17 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark REVLON, being a combination of the generic word “surgical” and the Complainant’s trademark REVLON.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant is the owner of the trademark REVLON both by registration and acquired reputation and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark REVLON.
...
2012-05-16 - Case Details