The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is
confusingly similar to this trademark. 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. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-12-18 - Case Details
This means that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark and
hence the first element of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-04-17 - Case Details
page 3
Accordingly, the Panel will consolidate the Complainants.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element requires the Panel to consider two issues: first, whether the Complainants have rights in a
relevant mark; and second, whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that
mark. ...Accordingly, the Panel will consolidate the Complainants.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-03-01 - Case Details
i) The Complainant claims that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its earlier well-
known trademarks, since the disputed domain names reproduce its CARREFOUR trademarks
together with the letter “b” and the word “panel”, respectively. ...The Panel will further analyze the potential concurrence of the above circumstances.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant owns exclusive trademark rights in CARREFOUR which predate
the registration of the two disputed domain names.
...
2023-09-05 - Case Details
As to whether the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the NATIXIS trademark, the Panel
observes that the Domain Name comprises: (a) the word “natix”, (b) followed by “investments”, and (c) the
country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.eu”.
...In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademark.
Therefore, the Panel holds that the Complainant has established the first element of Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(i)
of the ADR Rules.
...
2023-08-21 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Marks.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-11-01 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademarks as the
Domain Name is composed of the main name of the trademarks owned by the Complainant ELECNOR with
the addition of a term “group” which does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity.
...In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademarks. Therefore, the Complainant has established the first element of Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(i) of the
ADR Rules.
...
2023-11-22 - Case Details
Based on the evidence submitted by the Complainant and, in particular, with regards to the content of the
relevant provisions of the Policy (paragraph 4(a), (b), and (c)), the Panel concludes as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must establish 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...
2023-10-18 - Case Details
The third element a complainant must establish
is that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establish that the disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark as it includes the
Complainant’s trademark in its entirety combined with the term “tradelink”. ...
2023-06-27 - Case Details
The third element a complainant must establish
is that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
page 3
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establish that the disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark as it includes the
Complainant’s trademark entirely combined with the term “investment”. ...
2022-12-13 - 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
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 third element a complainant must establish
is that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
page 3
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establish that the disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...The disputed domain name has been found to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark THEA,
and the disputed domain name resolves to a PPC website offering links to websites of competitors of the
Complainant. ...
2022-08-16 - 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 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
The Panel finds that all three of these elements have been met in this case.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element requires the Panel to consider two issues: first, whether the Complainant has rights in a
relevant mark; and, second, whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that
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...
2022-07-05 - Case Details
The relevant part of the disputed domain name is “michelinstarrestaurants”, as it is well established in
previous UDRP decisions that the added Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) – being a required element of every
domain name – may be disregarded when assessing whether or not a domain name is identical or
confusingly similar to a trademark.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MICHELIN
trademark. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-06-09 - Case Details
The third element a complainant must establish
is that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establish 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...
2022-03-09 - Case Details
The Panel is also prepared to find that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademark VELUX. The Panel has had little difficulty in finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly
similar to the trademark VELUX, as the Complainant’s trademark VELUX is clearly recognizable in 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...
2022-03-21 - Case Details