A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established that it owns prior rights in the CLEARWATER SYSTEMS mark and the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CLEARWATER SYSTEMS mark.
...D2000-0666 (finding that the combination of a geographic term with an established trademark does not prevent a domain name from being found confusingly similar); Cellular One Group v. Paul Brien,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0028 (finding that the addition of the geographic country descriptor “china” to form was confusingly similar to the CELLULAR ONE trademark); CMGI, Inc. v. ...
2014-08-04 - 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.
...Moreover, the registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a well-known registered trademark by an entity that has no relationship to that mark may be sufficient evidence of bad faith registration and use. ...
2017-07-18 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that:
- the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark BRADESCO, registered in Brazil under No. 007.170.424, in which the Complainant has prior and unencumbered rights, as the disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark BRADESCO and is therefore confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark...The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the BRADESCO trademark as the disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark BRADESCO, registered in Brazil under No. 007.170.424, and is also confusingly similar to the domain names previously registered by the Complainant. ...
2015-09-03 - Case Details
In the circumstances, Complainant says that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its BMW trade mark.
5.A.1.2 In this connection, Complainant cites Decisions under the Policy where disputed domain names incorporating the BMW mark and a descriptive word ; ; ; and < desertbmw.com> were all found to be confusingly similar to the BMW trade mark.
5.A.1.3 Additionally, Complainant cites decisions under the Policy where the combination of the word "world" with a trade mark has been held to be confusingly similar to that mark. ...That is, the Policy expressly recognizes that other circumstances can be evidence relevant the requirements of paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and (iii) of the Policy.
6.5 Identical or Confusingly Similar
On the basis of the facts summarised in paragraph 4.A and the submissions and supporting cases summarised in paragraph 5.A.1 above, it is clear that Complainant has rights in the famous BMW trade mark and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to that mark. ...
2015-04-22 - Case Details
According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark, as "kamasa" is a distinctive word making both visually and aurally confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark KAMASA-TOOLS. ...American Consumers First et al.,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0742 (using confusingly similar domain names to redirect web users away from a complainant's website is evidence of bad faith); see also Trustmark National Bank v. ...
2015-04-22 - Case Details
In accordance with article 10.3 of the Regulations, the Complaint shall in that event be granted, unless the Panel considers it to be without basis in law or in fact.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to article 2.1(a) of the Regulations, Complainant must establish that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or trade name in which Complainant has rights.
...Many decisions under the Regulations have found that a domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant's trademark where the domain name incorporates the trademark in its entirety. ...
2017-06-09 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark RED BULL. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark RED BULL. ...
2016-07-20 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has submitted detailed evidence that it is the owner of numerous trademarks for T-MOBILE.
...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. ...
2015-11-26 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or confusingly similar:
The Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's Trade Mark. ...The Panel considers that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark for the following reasons.
The addition of the descriptive abbreviation "fest" does not detract from the identical or confusingly similar nature of the Disputed Domain Name. ...
2017-09-20 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to and confusingly similar with the name “Hamiet Bluiett” and the common law trademark rights which he asserts in HAMIET BLUIETT. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...
2017-08-25 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends, in relevant part, as follows:
- The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the HAEMONETICS Trademark because “Respondent’s domain name is virtually identical to Complainant’s HAEMONETICS trademark – differing only in the addition of a second letter ‘a’ instead of the first ‘e’”, which is, by definition, typosquatting...Policy, paragraph 4(a).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based upon the trademark registrations cited by Complainant, it is apparent that Complainant has rights in and to the HAEMONETICS Trademark.
...
2018-01-26 - Case Details
No Rights or Legitimate Interests: That the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the
disputed domain name, which incorporates the ALIMAK trademark; that the Complainant has not authorized
the Respondent to use a mark that is confusingly similar to the ALIMAK trademark or trade name, in whole or
in part, in any manner whatsoever, including as a domain name and that the use of a term confusingly similar
to the ALIMAK trademark as a part of the disputed domain name is in bad faith and solely intended to give
the impression of an association or relationship with the Complainant. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-06-23 - Case Details
Therefore, according to Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with Complainant´s
trademarks VALENTINO and VALENTINO GARAVANI, fulfilling 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...
2025-12-26 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights in the CHARLI D’AMELIO trademark through its United States
federal trademark registrations. The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to this
trademark.
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2012-1909
page 4
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. ...
2025-11-19 - Case Details
Therefore, according to Complainant, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar with Complainant’s
trademark 888STARZ, fulfilling 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...
2026-01-12 - Case Details
These elements are:
i. the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the
complainant has rights; and
ii. the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the disputed domain name; and
iii. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-03-17 - Case Details
page 3
Considering these requirements, the Panel rules as follows:
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.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CACHE-CACHE
mark. The Respondent’s incorporation of the Complainant’s mark in full in the disputed domain name is
sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks. ...
2022-08-26 - 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.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-09-13 - Case Details
The disputed domain name has been found to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark
MILLEIS, and the disputed domain name resolves to a PPC website. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-08-23 - Case Details
The Panel will deal with each of the requirements in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the 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...
2022-06-15 - Case Details