A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy provides that “[a domain-name holder] is required to submit to a mandatory
administrative proceeding in the event that [a complainant] asserts to the applicable [administrative-dispute-
resolution service provider], in compliance with the Rules of Procedure, that (i) [the Disputed Domain Name]
is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights[.]”.
...For the above reasons, the Panel finds that all of the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s trademark, and the condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...
2022-07-19 - Case Details
A complainant must prove each of these three
elements to succeed.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations for the BIOMERIEUX trademark. ...However, given the addition of the
letter “s”, the Domain Name and mark cannot be said to be identical, but the Domain Name is certainly
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BIOMERIEUX trademark.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the BIOMERIEUX trademark for the purposes of
the Policy and thus paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been established.
...
2023-01-09 - Case Details
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 a complainant’s trademark, that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and that a 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. ...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Complainant contends that because Respondent has created a domain name that is identical, therefore confusingly similar to Complainant’s DISHOOM Mark, as well as the domain name Complainant uses to operate its Official DISHOOM Website , it is implausible to believe that Respondent was not aware of Complainant’s mark when it registered its confusingly similar disputed domain name. ...
2021-10-26 - Case Details
The Panel finds the Respondent intentionally registered and is using the disputed domain names - which are
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks - in bad faith for the reasons set forth below.
...Also, the Respondent registered the
disputed domain names which are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark on the same day on
which the Complainant and DSM jointly announced their future merger. ...
2022-11-04 - Case Details
A. Domain Names Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided evidence of ownership of the registered trademark MEDIASET.
...II Confusingly similar
The Panel finds that the disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark owned by the Complainant. ...
2009-03-17 - Case Details
The Complainants submit that all of the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the NEWS CORPORATION mark and variations of it; and that the WSJ Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the WALL STREET JOURNAL mark.
...Similarly, the Panel is satisfied that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the mark NEWS CORPORATION.
By contrast, the Panel is not satisfied that the other two Domain Names in this Complaint, and , are confusingly similar to the marks NEWS CORP or NEWS CORPORATION. ...
2008-05-02 - Case Details
ii. Complainant argues that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the FIFTH THIRD and 53 Marks, pursuant to Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, because it wholly incorporates the 53 Mark with the addition of a non-descriptive hyphen.
...Respondent has not contested the assertions by Complaint that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the FIFTH THIRD and 53 Marks.
As numerous courts and prior UDRP panels have recognized, the incorporation
of a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a domain name
is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered mark.
...
2006-12-20 - Case Details
The Respondent could only have chosen a domain name confusingly similar to the UNILEVER name and mark in order to create an unfair commercial advantage for itself;
c. ...Hence, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainants' UNILEVER trade mark.
The Panel accordingly finds for the Complainants in relation to the first element.
...
2009-02-16 - Case Details
Confusing Similarity
Complainant further contends that the Disputed Domain Names are identical with and confusingly similar to the SUREPAYROLL Marks pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). Complainant argues that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar, because they wholly incorporate the principal element of SUREPAYROLL with the exception of common typographical errors and with the required extension of “.com.” ...Respondent has not contested the assertions by Complaint that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the SUREPAYROLL Marks.
As numerous courts and prior UDRP panels have recognized, the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered mark. ...
2007-06-28 - Case Details
The fact that the Respondent has only altered or removed one letter from the disputed domain names gives them a “greater tendency to be confusingly similar” to the WIKIPEDIA mark, where the Complainant’s trademark is “highly distinctive”.
According to the Complaint, when the WIKIPEDIA trademark and these disputed domain names are compared visually, they also appear confusingly similar. ...The Panel accordingly finds that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the WIKIPEDIA trademark in which the Complainant has rights, and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2015-09-01 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark NATWEST, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the disputed domain name and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...For all the above cited reasons, the Panel concludes that disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark in which the Complainant has rights, and therefore the condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is fulfilled.
...
2012-11-16 - Case Details
Complainant argues that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its SNAP-ON mark because “the term ‘SOCKS’ is descriptive within the context of Complainant’s offerings.”
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has provided sufficient evidence that it is the owner of a valid United States Registration for, and makes substantial use of, the SNAP-ON trademark. ...
2013-05-27 - 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
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
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
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 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
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
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