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
Complainant
1. The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights
The Disputed Domain Names are almost identical and/or confusingly similar to (a) the Complainant's domain name and (b) the Complainant's trade name and trademark AMANRESORTS.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove (a) that it has rights in a trademark or service mark, and (b) that each of the Disputed Domain Names is identical to or confusingly similar to such trademark or service mark.
...
2004-05-28 - Case Details
On August 25, 1999, Respondent registered the domain name , which is identical to, or confusingly similar to the Mark. Further, the Mark is automatically associated with the image of the Icon. ...Identical or confusing similarity
It is prima facie obvious that the Domain Name is virtually identical to the Complainant’s ENERGIZER BUNNY word mark and, therefore, that they are confusingly similar. I am not convinced that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Energizer Bunny device mark. ...
2000-12-14 - Case Details
Complainant
Not surprisingly, Complainant contends that Respondent is a "typo-squatter" who has registered a confusingly similar variation of its RBC CENTURA mark, , to attract Internet users who carelessly omit the second "c" from . ...Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.1 Although the requirement that a Complainant show that the Respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which it has rights as expressed as a single element, it is really two. ...
2003-06-18 - Case Details
D2001-0661
in which was found confusingly similar to the "aol"
trademark, WIPO Case No. D2000-0102 in
which was found confusingly similar to "nokia"
and Red Bull GmbH v. ...D2002-0068 in which was found confusingly
similar to "redbull".
The domain name is thus found to be confusingly similar to the trademark ABB in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2003-06-13 - 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
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
page 3
The Complainant stated that:
a) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks, since it contains the trademark
CARREFOUR, entirely. It is also confusingly similar to its domain names, registered before 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...
2025-03-06 - 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 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
Therefore, the disputed domain name is confusingly
similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
For the reasons mentioned above, the Panel finds that the first element has been established.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-09-01 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The evidence demonstrates that the Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations for KNIX in different
countries.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
As numerous prior UDRP panels have also recognized, the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety or a dominant feature of a trademark is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark. ...
2022-06-23 - Case Details
case=D2022-0488
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-1064.html
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 INSTAGRAM trademarks.
...The Panel therefore rules that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s marks. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third
Edition, section 1.7 (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) (UDRP panels often determine that disputed domain names are
confusingly similar to a complainant’s marks where the disputed domain names fully incorporate a
complainant’s marks).
...
2022-11-14 - Case Details
The Panel concludes that the disputed
domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trademarks ZENNI, ZENNI OPTICAL,
ZENNI.COM, and ZENNIOPTICAL.COM.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-07-28 - 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
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks GEBERIT.
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which it has rights. ...Michael Robertson,
WIPO Case No. D2000 0009).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is fulfilled.
...
2016-12-21 - 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.
...Thus, it is well established that such element may generally be disregarded when assessing whether a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. Proactiva Medio Ambiente, S.A. v. Proactiva,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0182.
...
2017-07-06 - Case Details
Therefore, the Complainant states that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name, , is confusingly similar to “Philip Morris” to which the Complainant has rights.
Furthermore, the Complainant declares that the disputed domain name, , which appends the term “.cloud” to “philipmorris” in the Top-Level Domain, is confusingly similar to PHILIP MORRIS. ...Thus, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to PHILIP MORRIS.
The Panel finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy have been met by the Complainant.
...
2016-09-01 - 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
The Complainants submits that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known GRUNDFOS trademarks. The Complainant notes that the Disputed Domain Name is structurally and phonetically deceptively similar to the GRUNDFOS trademark. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has established registered rights in its GRUNDFOS trademark. ...
2017-08-10 - Case Details