Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
(i) Identical or confusingly similar
Complainant contends that it is obvious the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's VÚB trademarks. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel must first determine whether the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. ...
2015-03-24 - Case Details
Given that "Caledonia" appears to be in common use as a geographical descriptor, the Panel does not accept that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Mark CALEDONIA. The more pressing question is whether the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Mark CALEDONIA MOTOR GROUP. ...As a result, it is clear that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to this common law mark.
The Panel has therefore concluded that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to one of the Complainant’s Marks, namely, CALEDONIA MOTOR GROUP, and also confusingly similar to the mark "Caledonia Motors" in which the Complainant has demonstrated common law rights.
6.3 The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names
The Respondent has asserted no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. ...
2001-09-05 - Case Details
The Domain Names in dispute are misspellings of one or the other of the Complainant’s
trademarks and are confusingly similar to one or the other or both of the Complainant’s
trademarks. Six Continent Hotels, Inc. v. ...Annex 11)
The Complainant has proven that the Domain Names registered by the Respondent are confusingly similar to the extensively used and widely recognized registered trademarks of the Complainant.
...
2003-11-21 - Case Details
The consensus reflected in previous Policy decisions is that a
domain name that consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered
confusingly similar to the trademark. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9.
In the absence of any explanation or rationale by the Respondent for its registration and use of the disputed
domain name, the Panel infers that the domain name was intended by the Respondent to be confusingly
similar to the Complainant’s COORSTEK trademark.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar to Complainant’s Trademark
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. ...
2024-11-04 - Case Details
In the present case, the Panel must decide whether the Complainant has introduced elements of proof, which allow the Panel to conclude that its allegations are true.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well established in previous UDRP decisions that, where the disputed domain name incorporates a complainant’s registered trademark, this may be sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy. ...Notwithstanding the fraudulent email scheme, the use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name to resolve to a parking page with links to competitors of the Complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services. ...
2022-01-04 - Case Details
The Complainant has the burden of proof in establishing each of these elements.
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.
...Under the Policy, the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) “.com” is not to be taken into account when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark.
In light of the foregoing, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademarks and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2020-02-26 - 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”. ...Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondent used the confusingly similar disputed domain name with the intention to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s websites. ...
2021-07-01 - Case Details
AAIM,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0403.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant must establish rights in a trademark and secondly that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which Complainant has rights.
...D2003-0696 (a domain name is “nearly identical or confusingly similar” to a complainant’s mark when it “fully incorporate[s] said mark”; holding , , and other domains confusingly similar to the complainant’s PEPSI mark) and Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. v. ...
2012-06-07 - Case Details
UDRP panels have consistently held that domain names are confusingly similar to established trademarks if they incorporate the trademark or a variation of the trademark. ...Previous WIPO 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. ...
2012-10-30 - Case Details
Complainant
(a) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
(i) Complainant owns trademark rights in its inherently distinctive TUMBLR Mark...Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that a domain name may be identical or confusingly similar to a trademark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trade mark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2013-06-11 - Case Details
b.Complainant’s Proof
(i)Domain Name Identical
or Confusingly Similar to Trademark
The Panel finds that Respondent’s
Domain Names are confusingly similar to Dell’s trademarks. ...The Panel finds that Respondent has
intentionally attempted to attract users to its site in bad faith through the
use of confusingly similar domain names.
Secondly, the Panel further
finds that Respondent did so for commercial gain. ...
2002-07-09 - Case Details
In light of the above, the Panel finds the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the UBER Mark which
remains clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name. ...In light of the above, the Panel finds the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the UBER Mark which remains clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name. ...
2025-05-19 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(i) Identical or confusingly similar
Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its 99DESIGNS trademark. ...D2021-2673 (finding domain name confusingly similar to CIC).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which
Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2023-08-23 - Case Details
D2009-1097 (a domain name that is “simply missing a single letter in the mark” is
confusingly similar to the mark); and Research In Motion Limited v. Privacy Locked LLC/Nat Collicot, WIPO
Case No. D2009-0320 (a domain name that contains a complainant’s trademark “absent one letter” is
confusingly similar to the mark).
As a result of the above analysis, the Panel makes no determination as to whether the Disputed Domain
Name is identical or confusingly similar to any of the SEAS Trademarks other than U.S. ...
2023-10-10 - Case Details
D2005-0831 (finding confusingly similar to complainant’s GILEAD SCIENCES name and mark); Auxilium Pharmaceuticals. Inc. v. Kumar Patel, FA 642141 (NAF April 6, 2006) (finding confusingly similar to complainant’s AUXILIUM name and mark)
6A.5 The Disputed Domain Name adds only the non-distinctive term “prepaid” to the MASTERCARD mark. ...D2007-0691 (finding the addition of the generic term “apply” to MASTERCARD does not change the overall impression of the mark and that the domain is confusingly similar to MasterCard’s MASTERCARD mark.
6A.6 For the above reasons, the Panel comes to the conclusion that the first element under the Policy — that the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has rights — has been established.
...
2007-10-01 - Case Details
Likewise, the use of a confusingly similar domain name to divert Internet users to a third-party site offering products or services in competition with Complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is undisputed that Complainant has rights over the ALLSTATE and ALLSTATE.COM trademarks.
...
2011-04-27 - Case Details
Complainant argues that the Domain Name is substantially identical and confusingly similar to the UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD mark, pursuant to Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. Complainant asserts that in the First Complaint against the Respondent concerning the Complainant’s registered trademarks for OXFORD UNIVERSITY and the Registrant's domain name , WIPO found that the two names were confusingly similar. ...Furthermore, Respondent has not contested the assertions by Complainant that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark.
Therefore, the Sole Panelist finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD mark pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2001-08-27 - 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. ...Thus, the Panel finds that the Disputed
Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s LENNAR Mark.
Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the first element of the Policy has been established.
...
2026-02-06 - Case Details
In particular, the Complainant asserts that:
(1) the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its 42 trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
The disputed domain name contains the trademark 42 in its entirety. ...Moreover, the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP
Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) and, where appropriate, will decide consistent with the
consensus views captured therein.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy it should be established that the disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the complainant has rights.
...
2023-04-17 - 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. ...In sum, UDRP panels have found that the registration of a disputed domain name that is
confusingly similar to a well-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can create a presumption of bad faith.
...
2023-04-21 - Case Details