Complainant further contends that the Disputed Domain Name is identical with and confusingly similar to the BETSSON Mark pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
Numerous UDRP decisions have recognized that incorporating a trademark in its entirety can be sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark. ...The Panel finds that the sound and appearance of "betsso" are sufficiently similar to "betsson" as to be confusingly similar.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the BETSSON Mark pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2016-01-20 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfactorily proven that it has registered trademark rights for ROCHE.
...D2001-0110, stating “The incorporation of a Complainant’s well-known trademark in the registered Domain Name is considered sufficient to find the Domain Name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.”.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first requirement that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark, under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2017-01-20 - Case Details
In accordance with paragraphs 5(f) and 14(b) of the Rules, if the Respondent does not submit a response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute based upon the Complaint.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This elements consists of two parts; first, whether the Complainant has rights in a relevant trademark and, second, whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
...Further, a Top-Level Domain such as “.com” in a domain name may be disregarded when assessing whether a domain name is identical of confusingly similar to a trademark (Proactiva Medio Ambiente, S.A. v. Proactiva,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0182).
...
2017-02-08 - Case Details
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...
2025-08-29 - 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
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the Australian Magic Men trademark. 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. ...
2025-10-16 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights over the trademark ATACADAO based on the
trademark registrations cited under section 4 above.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-11-12 - Case Details
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. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-04-06 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, there are two requirements which the Complainant must establish, first
that it has rights in a trademark or service mark, and second that the disputed domain name is identical or
confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark.
...Respondent
7. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-05-27 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the JLL trademark. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademark and hence the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...
2022-04-11 - Case Details
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 other terms 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...
2022-08-08 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the HEETS trademark. 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. ...
2022-03-10 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Ragnarök Trademarks. The Panel finds the Disputed
Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Ragnarök Trademarks. ...Domain
Privacy Service FBO Registrant / Junior Silva, WIPO Case No. D2021-2648 reached a similar conclusion in
relation to a domain name almost identical to the Disputed Domain Name.
It is also well established that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), in this case “.com”, does not affect the
Disputed Domain Name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar. ...
2022-03-24 - 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. ...Domains By Proxy, LLC / domain admin, WIPO Case No. D2013-0368.
The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the JDE Mark since the trademark is recognizable,
though intentionally misspelled, in the Disputed Domain Name. ...
2022-12-27 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant alleges that it has enforceable rights in the MERCK Mark and in the MERCK Family of Marks. ...The addition of other terms in the domain name does not affect a finding that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered trademark.
Respondent asserts that the Disputed Domain Name is not confusingly similar to the MERCK Mark. ...
2022-08-16 - Case Details
The Complainants assert that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainants’ mark because the addition of a geographical term “hu” is merely descriptive and does not exclude the likelihood of confusion. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP, the Complainant must prove that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2021-03-25 - Case Details
Therefore, the Panel concludes that the disputed
domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s INSTA mark for the purposes of Policy paragraph
4(a)(i). See, for example, Canon Information Systems Research Australia Pty Limited 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...
2023-03-09 - 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
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has properly asserted its rights in the BREITLING Trademark due to the long use and
numerous registrations worldwide. ...Pursuant to section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety
of a trademark, the domain name will normally be considered identical or confusingly similar to that mark for
purposes of UDRP standing.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
Trademark pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2023-01-17 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, there are two requirements which the Complainant must establish, first
that it has rights in a trademark or service mark, and second that the disputed domain name is identical or
confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark.
...According to section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, a domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or
intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark
for the purposes of the first element.
According to section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, the applicable Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) in a domain
name (in this case “.com”) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is generally
disregarded under the first element confusingly similar test.
...
2023-02-09 - Case Details