Complainant
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. The name of the Complainant’s trademark originates from the family name “Bridport,” and has no meaning in relation to commercial and financial services. ...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 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.
...
2012-03-02 - Case Details
Further, the Complainant has a wide range of registered trade mark rights in the word FENDI.
The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the FENDI trade mark. Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark 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. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark and, therefore, the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...
2015-01-23 - Case Details
In accordance with paragraph 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.
C. 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.
...Indeed, numerous panels have held that a domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark where, as in this case, the domain name incorporates the trademark in its entirety. ...
2014-07-11 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
1. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for the mark AIRTEL for telecommunications-related goods and services.
...Complainant also argues that the domain name is confusingly similar to the AIRTEL mark. However, many of its arguments rely on the distinctiveness of its mark and how well-known its mark is among consumers. ...
2015-12-18 - 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. The Panel concludes that in the present case, the Disputed
Domain Name is confusingly similar to the MIGNONANDMIGNON Mark, as it is visually similar to the
MIGNONANDMIGNON Mark, differing only by the misspelling of the mark by adding the letter “s” to the end
of the second term “mignon”.
...
2026-10-16 - 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...
2025-06-11 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its EXANTE trademark,
which it incorporates entirely and the trademark is recognizable 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...
2022-10-12 - Case Details
Complainant
According to Complainant, the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s
BUREAU VERITAS trademark in which Complainant has rights as demonstrated through its cited
registrations. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-04-25 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element that the Complainant must establish is that the disputed domain name is identical with, or
confusingly similar to, the Complainant’s trademark rights.
...Factual Background
5. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
6. Decision...
2022-07-27 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s DALKIA and DALKIA AIR SOLUTIONS trademarks, in which the Complainant has established rights through registration and use.
...Furthermore, it was consistently found by previous UDRP panels that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a third party’s well-known trademark constitutes by itself, a presumption of bad faith registration for the purpose of Policy. ...
2022-03-10 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark
in which the Complainant has rights. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark
in its entirety. ...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.
...
2022-02-25 - Case Details
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
WHATSAPP trademarks as provided under 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...
2023-01-04 - Case Details
Misspelling a mark in a domain name such as the transposition of one letter does not prevent the domain
name containing that misspelling being confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark. Changing a letter “r” for
a letter “n” does not prevent the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as
such typo is merely a substitution of similar-appearing characters.
...Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark
GRAMMARLY, and so the requirement of the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2023-04-04 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the ALSTOM trademark. ...It is well established that the TLD, in this case “.com”, does not affect the Disputed Domain Name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0429.
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.
...
2021-07-30 - Case Details
In the circumstances, in accordance with paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, the Panel decides that English be the language of the proceeding.
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel must determine whether (a) the Complainant has a trademark or service mark; and (b) whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark or service mark.
...Furthermore, the Respondent presumably receives click-through revenue each time Internet users are misled by the confusingly similar disputed domain name and click on the links hosted thereon.
Further, the relevant webpage does not openly provide any contact information of its administrator. ...
2021-11-23 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), the Complainants shall prove that the Disputed Domain Name is
identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainants have rights.
...Therefore, the Panel holds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainants’
trademark and that the Complainants have established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2023-04-20 - Case Details
Considering these
requirements, the Panel rules as follows:
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. ...The Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
mark and the Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2023-01-17 - Case Details
i) The domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark BRADESCO in which the Complainant has rights.
The domain name is confusingly similar to registered on January 1, 1996 (Annex 23 to the Complaint). ...The Complainant’s trademark BRADESCO is obviously confusingly similar to the domain name .
As pointed out in a previous decision – similar to the instant one that involved the same mark – which applies mutatis mutandis here (Banco Bradesco S.A. v. ...
2011-02-14 - Case Details
The Complainant claims that the disputed domain names and are confusingly similar to its trademark CREDIT MUTUEL because the generic top-level domains “.info” and “.org” are not of distinguishing effect and the inclusion of the top-level domain extension does not give any distinctive character to the disputed domain names.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has been using the CREDIT MUTUEL trademark for decades in the area of banking and financial services. ...
2014-02-14 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element the Complainants must have trade or service mark rights and each of the Domain Names must be identical or confusingly similar to a trade or service mark owned by the Complainant.
...The disputed domain names and are confusingly similar to the Complainants’ registered trademark for TAISLIM since each of these names contain the TAISLIM mark in its entirety, and add a dash or the word “skinnys” respectively. ...
2012-08-08 - Case Details