Given the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainants’
well-known trademark NALLI and with that the Complainant has satisfied the elements required in
paragraph 4(a)(i) 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...
2023-10-02 - Case Details
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-1064.html
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
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 GEICO mark.
...D2002-1064; WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO ...
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-05-23 - Case Details
The Panel finds that all three of these elements have been met in this case.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on
Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. ...Registering and using a domain name
containing a mark confusingly similar to a third party’s mark, to imitate that mark owner and to engage in a
phishing scheme, is a clear a clear example of bad faith under the Policy. ...
2024-09-02 - Case Details
Notably, Complainant contends that:
- The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the CRITICORE Trademark because the
Disputed Domain Name “add[s] only the generic corporate designation ‘lnc’ (albeit with the typographical
substitution of ‘i’ for ‘l’), as well as the Top-Level Domain (‘gTLD’) ‘.com’”; and “a domain name that includes
a trademark, service mark, or a confusingly similar approximation, is identical or confusingly similar to the
trademark for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(i), regardless of other terms or symbols that appear in the 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...
2024-10-31 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the Respondent is operating a website in association with a confusingly similar domain name that provides identical moving services as the Complainant, which is not a bona fide offering of goods and services.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant does have recognizable trademark rights in the trademarks E-MOVERS by virtue of its trademark registrations listed in paragraph 4 of this Decision. ...
2018-10-15 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...It is generally regarded as prima facie evidence of no rights or legitimate interests if a complainant shows that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark, that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and that the complainant has not authorized the respondent to use its mark (or an expression which is confusingly similar to its mark), whether in the disputed domain name or otherwise. ...
2020-08-05 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
Both parties present arguments which are summarized in essential detail below.
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar to a Trade Mark or Service Mark in which the Complainant has Rights
The Complainant argues that Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark for CANTERA DOORS.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar to a Trademark or Service Mark in which the Complainant has Rights
The Panel follows abundant panel precedents and accepted principles of trade mark law in deciding that is confusingly similar to the trademark CANTERA DOORS.
...
2005-05-26 - Case Details
Name Privacy, supra).
There is no doubt that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademarks of the Complainant. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first element of the Policy.
...Only someone who was familiar with the Complainant's marks would have registered such a confusingly similar Domain Name (see Aventis, Aventis Pharma SA. v. John Smith,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0850; AT&T Corp. v. ...
2009-05-20 - Case Details
The Disputed Domain Name was registered on November 8, 2006.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Confusingly Similar
Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s XENICAL mark and incorporates the mark in its entirety. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights, through
registration and use, in the mark XENICAL. ...
2007-03-28 - Case Details
Policy, paragraph 4(a).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based upon the registrations cited by Complainant, the Panel is convinced that Complainant has rights in the mark STAR SYSTEMS.
...D2005-0256 (finding the
domain name confusingly similar to the trademark PFIZER).
Therefore, Complainant has proven that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STAR SYSTEMS mark, and Complainant has proven the first of the three elements required by the Policy.
...
2006-04-04 - Case Details
Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s FIFTH THIRD mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.
3. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established rights in the FIFTH THIRD mark through commercial use since 1968, and registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). ...
2006-04-04 - Case Details
Therefore,
the Panel finds the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
service mark. (See Tcketmaster Corporation v. Dmitri Prem, ICANN/WIPO
Case No. ...D2000-0028, March 10, 2000 where the domain name
was found confusingly similar to the mark Cellular One; and General Electric
Company v. Pars International Computer, Inc., ICANN/WIPO
Case No. ...
2001-09-21 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant claims that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark ALTA VISTA as required by paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...i) Identical or confusingly similar
The Administrative Panel accepts the Complainant's submission that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark ALTA VISTA. ...
2002-12-13 - Case Details
For the evaluation of this case, the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0, and, where appropriate,
will decide consistently with the consensus views stated therein.
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...
2025-09-15 - Case Details
Requirements of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy
(i) Identical or Confusingly Similar
In comparing the Mark with the disputed domain name , it is evident that the latter contains the Mark. ...It is also well-established that the specific top level of a domain name such as “.com”, does not typically affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Mark.
...
2013-07-19 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that:
- The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the FIRSTONSITE Trademark because the
Disputed Domain Name “contains a lowercase ‘L’ that is intended to resemble a lowercase ‘I,’ which does
not significantly affect the appearance of” the FIRSTONSITE Trademark, and “[a] domain name that
substitutes of similar-appearing characters of a trademark […] is confusingly similar for the purposes of the
first element...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-07-31 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant clearly has rights in the mark AMBIEN based on its long and extensive use and ownership of numerous trademark registrations worldwide.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark, and that the Complainant meets the first criterion of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2007-10-16 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has submitted detailed evidence that it is the owner of registered trademarks consisting of the word "marlboro".
...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. ...
2014-12-24 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has submitted detailed evidence that it is the owner of numerous trade marks consisting of the words "wal-mart" and "walmart".
...Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark 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. ...
2014-12-23 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has submitted detailed evidence that it is the owner of various trademarks for the word “MAPLIN”.
...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. ...
2015-04-16 - Case Details