The Respondent says that the disputed domain name is not confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark. In short names or trademarks, especially those of equal or less than five letters, a one letter difference is significant. ...The Complainant has not, however, shown that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the "AMEGY" component of this mark. While the Complainant made this claim, it provided little argument to support it.
...
2014-11-21 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Complainant says that, notwithstanding the addition of “replicaus” to “Goyard”, the first disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its GOYARD trade mark.
The Complainant adopts a similar analysis in respect of the second disputed domain name. ...As the Complainant asserts, it is well established that the applicable generic Top-Level Domain suffixes “.com” and “.net” should be disregarded for the purpose of determining whether a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark.
Accordingly, is the material part of the first disputed domain name, “goyardreplicaus” confusingly similar to “Goyard”? ...
2014-09-08 - Case Details
Complainant affirms that the domain names registered by Respondent are confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks, as they fully incorporate Complainant’s URBAN DECAY and UD trademarks. ...Thereby, it is easier to conclude that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks, according to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the policy and as previously decided by the panel in Moncler S.R.L. v. ...
2015-10-12 - 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...
2025-06-24 - Case Details
D2007-1833; “Substantial authority exists to the effect that registration of
a domain name that is confusingly similar to a famous trademark by any entity that has no relationship to that
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-03-14 - Case Details
The Complainant must still prove each of the three elements required by Policy paragraph 4(a)”).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Ownership of a nationally or regionally registered trademark serves as prima facie evidence that Complainant has trademark rights for the purposes of standing to file this Complaint. ...The only remaining question under the first element of the Policy is whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s HIGH RADIUS trademark. In this Complaint, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HIGH RADIUS trademark because, disregarding the “.com” generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), the trademark is contained in its entirety within the disputed domain name. ...
2021-05-11 - Case Details
Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark
NATIXIS, and so the requirement of the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied.
...Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-10-09 - Case Details
Accordingly, the
disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO
Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within 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...
2023-09-29 - Case Details
It submits that the Disputed
Domain Name is confusingly similar to its trademark, because the Disputed Domain Name incorporates in its
entirety the WILD FLOWER trademark and that the similarity is not removed by the addition of the word
“sale”.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has produced sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it has registered trademark rights in
the mark WILD FLOWER. ...
2023-07-10 - Case Details
The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the entirety of the Trade Mark with the addition of the word “my”. ...The onus of proving these elements is on the Complainant even though the Respondent failed to submit a response.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.
...
2020-06-04 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant must establish that it has a trademark or service mark and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark or service mark for the Complainant to succeed.
...It is well accepted by UDRP panels that a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), such as “.com”, is typically ignored when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusing similar to a trademark.
This Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and therefore finds that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2019-09-04 - Case Details
Complainant’s Contentions
i. Domain Name Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant alleges that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark, MEDCO, and its variations, as well as Complainant’s MEDCO domain names. ...Thus, the Administrative Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, MEDCO, and its other MEDCO-related marks and domain names.
B. ...
2004-09-01 - Case Details
Moreover, as discussed above, the disputed
domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s PREMIUM OUTLETS mark, which has been
registered for many years.
...Supplemental Filings
6.2. Substantive Matters
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-02-17 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established that it has rights to the trade marks VULKAN and VOLCANO which is has registered and used in many countries.
...In the Panel’s view the sign “Vylcan” is also confusingly similar to the Complainant’s VULKAN trade mark. The remaining Domain Name comprises the sign Vol-kano” which is a misspelling of the Complainant’s VOLCANO trade mark with an added hyphen. ...
2020-07-30 - 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
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
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
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
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