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
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
As discussed
above, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the WHATSAPP trademark. The associated
website reinforces this confusion by prominently referencing the Complainant and its WHATSAPP mark,
adopting similar colors, icons and layout, and featuring the Complainant’s figurative telephone logo and a
look-alike favicon.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-12-05 - 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. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-12-13 - Case Details
Complainants
5.1 The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark
"zegnafashion" is presented as confusingly similar to the trademark ZEGNA.
5.2 The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name
The Complainants maintain that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. ...Respondent
5.3.1 To the question: the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark
The domain name is not used. The site is called "designerglobe.com", it will serve as an information portal, offering style and fashion commentary.
...
2000-08-07 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the domain name is confusingly similar to the CIALIS mark because the disputed domain name incorporates entirely Complainant’s distinctive mark. ...Indeed,
there are numerous examples of decisions holding a domain name to be confusingly
similar to a registered trademark when it consists of the mark plus one or more
generic terms. ...
2004-12-09 - Case Details
Gary Witcher, NAF Case No. 1259306 (June 9, 2009) ( confusingly similar to AAA marks for discount and travel services); American Automobile Association v. AAA Vacation Club c/o Conrad Nizynski, NAF Case No. 1169994 (May 14, 2008) ( confusingly similar to AAA Marks for travel and vacation services).
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has furnished evidence of its rights in the AAA trademark and similar trademarks incorporating the letters AAA, through the above-listed federal registrations and at common law.
...
2009-12-14 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s ABB mark in which it has rights. ...Complainant has adduced evidence to prove that by using a confusingly similar disputed domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website which offers under an apparently fictitious company (ABB Electric Group Limited) named after Complainant, similar products (electrical apparatus) with appearances that have been slavishly copied from Complainant and which bear a confusingly similar trade mark ARB. ...
2007-12-14 - Case Details
The Panel will discuss these elements one by one:
A. Respondent’s Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s Mark (Policy, Paragraph 4(a)(i))
(i) Complainant has rights in the JOHN ALDEN Marks. ...This Panel holds that Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s JOHN ALDEN marks.
B. Respondent has no Rights or Legitimate Interests in respect of the Domain Name (Policy, Paragraph 4(a)(ii))
Complainant has established that Respondent is not associated or affiliated with Complainant, nor has Complainant ever authorized, licensed or permitted Respondent to register or use the Domain Name or any other mark or name that is confusingly similar to the JOHN ALDEN Marks. ...
2005-07-28 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first issue is whether the domain name is similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...The Respondent has associated the geographical ‘asia’ with
the word MTV to create a domain name which is confusingly similar with Complainant’s
trademark MTV.’
In view of all the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark RED BULL.”
...
2005-10-21 - Case Details
The Complainant has rights in a trade or service mark, with which Respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar.
There are two requirements that a Complainant must establish under this paragraph; that it has rights in a trade or service mark, and that the domain name(s) is|are identical or confusingly similar to the marks.
...The second requirement is that the domain name(s) be identical or confusingly similar to the marks. Here the Complainants assert that the domain names are identical or confusingly similar to their marks, based on two main arguments:
(1) The disputed domain names used and registered by the Respondent are nearly identical to the magazine title, Rosie’s McCall’s...
2001-02-28 - Case Details
Complainant
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant (or its predecessor or related companies) has rights in and to the BANANA REPUBLIC trademark. ...Registration of the disputed domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to the famous or widely-known Complainant’s trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. ...
2019-09-24 - Case Details
Policy, Paragraph 4(a).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based upon the federal trademark registration in the United States of America cited by Complainant, it is clear that Complainant has rights in the mark FLIRT4FREE.
...However, Complainant need prove only that the Domain Name is “confusingly similar” to a mark in which Complainant has rights. The panel agrees with Complainant’s statement that “Respondent’s domain name makes no sense except to appear very similar to Complainant’s”. ...
2007-05-15 - 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
Complainant
Complainant seeks the transfer of the Domain Name from Respondent to Complainant in accordance with the Regulations.
The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trademarks
Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trademarks.
...Considering these conditions, the Panel rules as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There are two requirements that a complainant must establish under the first criterion, being i) that it has rights in a trade name or trademark protected under Dutch law, and ii) that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to such trade name or trademark.
...
2015-06-09 - Case Details
The Panel further concludes that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the mark.
Respondent contends that the absence of the word "gallery" in the Domain Name is a critical difference. ...The Domain Name, which, as was held above, is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark, resolves to a website where custom art reproductions are offered for sale. ...
2016-06-23 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the registered trademarks TOEFL and TOEFL IBT.
...DIR2014-008 (January 26, 2015) finding confusingly similar to AEG; Educational Testing Service v. Domains by Proxy Inc. / Zhao Zhihui / Chen keqing,
WIPO Case No. ...
2018-03-29 - Case Details
Past UDRP decisions also suggest that common and descriptive terms should be disregarded in determining whether a domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
For instance, in Dixons Group Plc v. ...D2008-0792, the panel therein held that the “the mere addition of the common word ‘free’” after the complainant’s MYHOSTING mark in the disputed domain name was insufficient to prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark.
This Panel concurs with these past decisions and finds that a mere addition of “-shoes”, which is a common and descriptive word, does not prevent the Domain Name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark.
...
2017-04-24 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
As set forth in section 1.7 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third
Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) the standing test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively
straightforward comparison between the trademark and the disputed domain name to determine whether the
disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the trademark. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark BEN
SHERMAN in which the Complainant has rights and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy
are fulfilled.
...
2023-03-27 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(i) Identical or Confusingly Similar:
Complainant submits that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights, namely, Complainant’s POINTSBET word mark and Complainant’s POINTSBET marks with logos, as listed above. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established that it has well-established rights in its registered POINTSBET trademarks. ...
2021-04-26 - Case Details