…
Examples of such typos include … substitution of similar-appearing characters …”
For all these reasons, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s 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...
2024-05-16 - Case Details
In particular, the Complainant asserts that:
The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
- The disputed domain names are confusingly similar or identical to the Complainant's registered trademark, MANULIFE, in light of the fact that they wholly incorporate the Complainant's mark...The Respondent has failed to file a response in these proceedings and is therefore in default and the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the available evidence submitted by the Complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element, the Complainant must have trademark rights and the disputed domain name must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.
...
2016-09-20 - Case Details
D2000-0583, the panel had ordered the transfer of the domain name to the complainant by determining that the domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark by observing as follows:
“The Respondents’ registration, consisting of the Complainants’ name with the suffix, ‘sucks’ (plus ‘.com’), is not identical to the Complainants’ marks and the question arises whether the registration is confusingly similar to those marks.
...Thus, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademarks.
The first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is accordingly proven by the Complainant.
...
2016-05-24 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant owns the FREY WILLE trademark. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2017-07-04 - Case Details
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules directs the Panel to decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element that the Complainants must establish is that the disputed domain name is identical with, or confusingly similar to, the Complainants’ trademark rights.
...In that decision, however, the learned panelist found that the domain name was confusingly similar to the trademark TATA. It does not provide any support for the Respondent’s contention.
...
2021-09-02 - Case Details
i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the
Complainant has rights
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to its
trademarks since both incorporate the DAKINE mark in its entirety. ...The above three elements will each be discussed in further detail below.
page 4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is required to establish: (1) that it owns rights in a trademark or service mark, and, if so, (2)
that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to its trademarks.
...
2023-01-19 - Case Details
Toyrus.com, NAF Case No. FA150406 ( held confusingly similar to TOYS “R” US mark despite deletion of the letter “s” from “toys” and the quotation marks around the “r”).
This Panel therefore finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph (4)(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2011-08-16 - Case Details
According to Complainant, it is inconceivable that Respondent was unaware of the existence of the registered trademark or the brand it represents when it registered the confusingly similar Domain Name. Indeed, the well-known character of a trademark with which a domain name is confusingly similar is, in itself, evidence of bad faith registration.
...Considering the trademark’s unique and distinct characteristics, it is highly unlikely to this Panel that Respondent was unaware of the existence of the registered trademark or the brand it represents when it registered the confusingly similar Domain Name.
Indeed, the well-known character of a trademark with which a domain name is confusingly similar is, in itself, evidence of bad faith registration. ...
2012-04-24 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that a domain name is 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. ...Given the widespread reputation of the ASP marks, the confusingly similar domain name , as well as the similar website layout, ASP image logo and product photos, the Panel finds that the public is likely to be confused into thinking that the disputed domain name has a connection with Complainant, contrary to fact. ...
2018-09-24 - Case Details
The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name disrupts the Complainant’s business and is a bad faith registration because the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and the Respondent’s web site offers counterfeit goods.
...Elements of a Claim
(i) Domain Name Identical or Confusingly Similar to the Complainant’s Trademark
To prove the first element, the Complainant must prove that (1) it has rights in a trademark and (2) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to this trademark.
...
2019-04-05 - Case Details
The Panel finds that all five domain names are confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has put forward no evidence that it holds a right or legitimate interest in the domain names. ...The Respondent’s conduct in knowingly adopting confusingly similar and infringing domain names was not, in the Panel’s view, bona fide use, and was therefore not capable of conferring a right or legitimate interest in the domain names.
...
2003-08-21 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires that the Complainant demonstrate 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 marks as the addition of the letter "y" and the substitution of the letter "c" with a "k" in the disputed domain name are not sufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant's marks. ...
2015-01-05 - Case Details
Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark of the
Complainant and that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark CANVA. The Complainant owns numerous registrations for the trademark CANVA. ...
2022-10-11 - Case Details
The Panel further finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly
similar to Complainant’s Marks. Respondent’s substitution of a visually similar letter – an “l” for an “i” – is an
example of an intentional misspelling of a trademark that results in a domain name that is confusingly similar
to the 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...
2022-04-22 - Case Details
Seocho, NAF Claim No. 149187 (finding confusingly similar to MARRIOTT). The Domain Name is virtually identical to Complainant’s COMERICA Mark, differing only by the addition of another letter “i”. Because Respondent has committed typosquatting, the Domain Name at issue is, by definition, confusingly similar to Complainant’s COMERICA Mark. Edmunds.com, Inc v. Triple E Holdings Limited,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-08-31 - Case Details
First, where a domain name takes a mark of a company and then adds words descriptive of services it provides, the result is a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark concerned. Secondly, typosquatting, the practice of misspelling an element of the mark, has consistently been regarded as creating domain names confusingly similar to the relevant mark.
...For all these reasons, this Panel concludes that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to a service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has not made any claim that it has any rights or legitimate interests in the domain names. ...
2005-07-25 - Case Details
Complainant further contends that the Domain Names are identical with and confusingly similar to the trademark pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
Respondents have not contested the assertions by Complaint that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Trademarks.
...Accordingly, the Sole Panelist finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant's Trademarks.
Respondents’ Domain Names "nfospace.com", "infoospace.com", "infospacer.com" and "infospacers.com" are also confusingly similar to Complainant's INFOSPACE mark are clearly misleading. ...
2001-04-06 - 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
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the
LINCOLN ELECTRIC 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...
2026-07-17 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold inquiry: a threshold investigation into whether a
complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the first element of the Policy has been established.
...
2025-04-11 - Case Details