A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under the first UDRP element, the Complainant is required to prove that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...See paragraph 1.9, WIPO Overview 2.0. Therefore, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's AXA trademark.
Thus, the Panel holds that the first element of the UDRP has been proved.
...
2017-03-29 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the prior marks of Complainant, insofar as it reproduces integrally the prior mark MAILCHIMP, which have acquired a high level of distinctiveness. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel must find that the Complainant 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.
...
2017-03-29 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions and is, therefore, in default.
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.
...D2008-0377 (where the panel found the combination of the trademark ERGO in the second level of the domain name together with the term “finance” to be confusingly similar to the trademark in question).
Consequently, the Panel finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are fulfilled.
...
2018-02-02 - Case Details
Policy, paragraph 4(a).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based upon the trademark registrations cited by Complainant, it is apparent that Complainant has rights in and to the BHP BILLITON Trademark.
...As stated in WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7, "in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing." Further, previous panels have found that a domain name containing a complainant's trademark plus the word "mail" is confusingly similar to the trademark. ...
2017-11-13 - Case Details
In such cases, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to the
incorporated mark for purposes of UDRP standing. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-06-24 - Case Details
Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its NOVAGOLD trademark, as
it fully incorporates the latter, with the addition of the dash between the elements “nova” and “gold”.
...Further, according to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences from Respondent's
failure to submit a Response as it considers appropriate.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name , , is at least confusingly similar to the
NOVAGOLD trademark in which Complainant has rights.
...
2023-01-31 - 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. ...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
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. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-07-15 - Case Details
Michael Robertson,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0009).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Although the disputed domain name is not identical to Complainant’s VATTENFALL trademark, the Panel agrees with Complainant that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar.
...D2008-1275 (disputed domain name confusingly similar to GAMEBOOKERS mark for phonetic reasons (transfer denied on other grounds) citing Medtronic, Inc. v. gotdomains4sale.com,
WIPO Case No. ...
2011-05-19 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant alleges that it has registered trademarks for the PACIFIC RIM CAPITAL Mark. ...In addition, Complainant alleges that the Disputed Domain Name and the website to which the Disputed Domain Name resolves are confusingly similar to the PACIFIC RIM CAPITAL Mark, because the only addition in the Disputed Domain Name is the addition of a hyphen.
...
2011-04-21 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends that is confusingly similar to the Community trade mark of which it is the proprietor and under which it undertakes public activities on a permanent basis. ...Secondly, it follows from the above that whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark, is to be judged against the dominant textual elements of a complainant's mark. ...
2010-04-16 - Case Details
Policy, paragraph 4(a).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based upon the trademark registrations cited by Complainant, it is apparent that Complainant has rights in
and to the GREYSON 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...
2023-08-03 - Case Details
The Panel finds that all three of these elements have been met in this case.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This first element under the Policy functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Instead it
results in a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark”.)
The Complainant has met this first element under the Policy.
...
2023-07-25 - Case Details
Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's RACK
ATTACK Mark in which Complainant has rights, satisfying the first element 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...
2024-10-02 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the STUDIO 6 EXTENDED STAY trademark. The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to this trademark. ...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. 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.
...
2019-01-29 - Case Details
Because Respondent has committed typosquatting, the Domain Name is, by definition, confusingly similar to the BUCCELLATI Mark. Edmunds.com, Inc v. Triple E Holdings Limited,
WIPO Case No. D2006-1095.
...D2003-0716 (finding the domain name confusingly similar to and noting the visual and phonetic similarity of the two).
Furthermore, using a gTLD such as “.com” is irrelevant as it is well established that it is insufficient to avoid a finding of confusingly similarity. ...
2020-09-01 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element requires the Complainant to establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark in which it has rights.
...REDDY’S mark, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the DR. REDDY’S trademark as the disputed domain name is phonetically similar to the Complainant’s mark. ...
2021-03-12 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under the first UDRP element, the Complainant must prove that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...It is well-established, that “the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain name comprising typos […]) to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith.”7 The evidence on file shows that the Complainant’s trademark is widely known, therefore the Respondent’s unauthorized registration of the Domain Name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark is in bad faith.
...
2019-12-26 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant alleges that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its NYR HOME trademarks.
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks, and the condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...
2020-10-02 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is manifestly similar to that trade mark. Its combination with the word “job” makes the disputed domain name confusingly similar to that mark. The trade mark is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name. It follows that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel is satisfied that the second element is present.
...
2020-10-22 - Case Details