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...
2025-01-28 - 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. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-08-30 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name and the
CARREFOUR trademarks are confusingly similar.
...Complainant
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-05-17 - Case Details
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 a complainant’s trademark, that the
respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and that a 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. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-04-07 - Case Details
In the instant proceeding, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WINTRUST mark as the disputed domain name fully incorporates the WINTRUST mark. ...Prinn Sukriket,
WIPO Case No. D2011-0439.
That Respondent chose to use a confusingly similar domain name to promote Respondent’s real estate services is not a legitimate or bona fide use. ...
2021-04-23 - Case Details
It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the 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.
...It is well established that seeking to profit from the sale of a confusingly similar domain name that incorporates a third party’s trademark demonstrates bad faith. See Luigi Lavazza S.p.A. v. ...
2021-09-28 - Case Details
A complainant must prove each of
these three elements to succeed.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the owner of the LIDL trademark and thus clearly has rights for the purposes of the
Policy.
...The addition of the term and the hyphen “-shop” does not prevent a finding of confusing
similarity.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the LIDL trademark for the purposes of the
Policy and thus paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been established.
...
2022-11-30 - 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
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-03-03 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has properly asserted its rights in the STARBUCKS Trademark due to the long use and
number of registrations globally.
...It is also well established that the gTLD, in this case “.com”, does not affect the Disputed Domain Name for
the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar.
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.
...
2023-03-17 - Case Details
Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered trademarks CAMPHO-PHENIQUE because it is an abbreviated version of the trademarks. ...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 to or confusingly similar to the trademark in which Complainant has rights.
...
2011-05-26 - Case Details
D2001-0778, October 1, 2001, (where was found confusingly similar to the PLAYBOY mark); Adaptive Molecular Technologies, Inc. v. Piscilla Woodward S Charles R Thorton, d/b/a Machines & More,
WIPO Case No. ...D2000-0429 (June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar).
Complainant has not authorized, licensed or consented to Respondent's registration and use of any domain name incorporating the THOMAS SABO trademark, or any confusingly similar variation of Complainant's marks. ...
2010-01-25 - Case Details
In light of the above, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s TYSON, and that the Complainant has established the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the
Policy.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-11-27 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has properly asserted its rights in the SAP Trademark due to the long use and number of
registrations worldwide. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-10-02 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant has to show that the Domain Name is
identical or confusingly similar with the Trade Marks, in which it 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...
2023-10-19 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant has to show that the Domain Name is
identical or confusingly similar with the Trade Marks, in which it 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...
2023-10-19 - Case Details
For all the foregoing reasons, the Panel holds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s INTCOMEX trademark within the meaning of 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...
2023-09-28 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name is “identical or
confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights”.
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which
Complainant has rights, and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2023-08-03 - Case Details
In all the
circumstances, the Panel determines that English be the language of the proceeding.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established that it has rights to the Trade Mark. ...Procedural History
4. Factual Background
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established that it has rights to the Trade Mark. ...
2023-08-16 - Case Details
i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the
Complainant has rights.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its
trademarks since it incorporates the PINSENT MASONS mark in its entirety. ...The above three elements will each be discussed in further detail below.
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 name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademarks.
...
2023-06-22 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...It is an accepted principle that generic Top-Level Domains (“gTLDs”), in this case “.com”, are to be typically
disregarded in the consideration of the issue of whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to
a Complainant’s trademarks. Disregarding the gTLD “.com”, the Panel notes that the disputed domain
names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
...
2024-08-15 - Case Details