Therefore Complainant must establish that each is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, determined with reference to the degree of resemblance between the domain name and mark at issue as to appearance, sound, and meaning. ...As a general matter, a domain name is likely to be confusingly similar to a mark if it incorporates the mark or a variation of the mark2 . The Panel finds that Complainant has established that each domain name is confusingly similar to the AUDI mark. ...
2015-09-21 - Case Details
The Panel will deal with each of these requirements in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element, Complainant must first establish that there is a trademark or service mark in which it has rights. ...D2012-1395, where the domain name was held to be confusingly similar to the KAREN MILLEN trademark; Belstaff S.R.L. v. Jason Lau, Sharing,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0783, where the domain name was held to be confusingly similar to the BELSTAFF trademark; Lime Wire LLC v. ...
2015-11-30 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant makes the following contentions.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The relevant trade mark registrations establish that the Complainant is the owner of the Trade Mark. ...However, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s default.
B. 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.
...
2015-11-25 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established its trademark rights in MARLBORO as evidenced by the trademark registrations submitted with the Complaint, as mentioned above.
The Panel is also prepared to find that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainants' trademark MARLBORO. The disputed domain name uses the term "malboro" which is confusingly similar to the trademark MARLBORO but without the letter "r".
...
2016-01-29 - Case Details
Complainant
The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s name and its trademarks. ...A complainant must prove each of these three elements to succeed.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant clearly has rights in the BOURJOIS trademark for the purposes of the Policy.
...
2016-02-09 - Case Details
A. 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.
...First, the registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a registered trademark by an entity that has no relationship to that mark may be sufficient evidence of opportunistic bad faith. ...
2016-04-22 - Case Details
However, since the trademark is fully contained in the disputed domain name and the added descriptive term bears directly on the products sold under the mark, the Panel finds that the name is confusingly similar to the mark. See, Gregory Bros Pty Ltd, Gregory Jewellers Pty Ltd, LGR Holdings Pty Ltd v. ...D2002-0899 (finding to be confusingly similar to the KAY trademark).
Therefore, the Panel rules that the Complainant has succeeded in demonstrating that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2016-03-22 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark and, second, are the Disputed Domain Names identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
...Second, the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Names that are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s GROUPON Mark is evidence of opportunistic bad faith. See Ebay Inc. v. ...
2016-03-14 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant alleges that:
(a) The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark.
The Complainant claims that the additional generic terms such as "photo" and "video" closely relate to and describe the Complainant's business and is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the trademark registrations cited by the Complainant, the Complainant has registered rights in the B&H trademarks. ...
2016-05-31 - Case Details
The Complainant claims that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its trademarks because it contains both terms "monaco" and "casino", which compose the Complainant's trademark CASINO DE MONACO. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under the first 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.
...
2016-12-19 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends, in relevant part, as follows:
- The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the ADVANSIX Trademark because “the [Disputed] Domain Name entirely incorporates the federally registered ADVANSIX trademark, minus the letter ‘i,’ and simply represents ‘typo-squatting’ or purposeful misspelling”; and “[i]t is well-established under the Policy that a domain name composed solely of a trademark that has been purposefully misspelled by a typo-squatter is still confusingly similar to the trademark...Policy, paragraph 4(a)).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based upon the trademark registration cited by Complainant, it is apparent that Complainant has rights in and to the ADVANSIX Trademark.
...
2018-03-29 - 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.
...Given that the Complainant is a premier bank, the word element “ban” added to the Complainant’s CADENCE mark in fact – in addition to being confusingly similar to the CADENCE mark of the Complainant – creates an almost identical sign to the Complainant’s CADENCE BANK mark.
...
2017-09-06 - Case Details
Further, for the purpose of determining whether the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark, the generic Top Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com" is inconsequential. ...Secondly, the registration of the Disputed Domain Name that is confusingly similar to the well-known MARLBORO trademark by a natural person who has no relation to the mark suggests bad faith. ...
2018-03-15 - Case Details
The mere fact of registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar or identical to a famous trademark by an entity that has no relationship to that mark is itself evidence of bad faith registration and use.
...The Respondent has failed to file a Response in this proceeding and is therefore in default and the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the available evidence submitted by the Complainant.
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.
...
2018-03-14 - 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 f inds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s HALEON marks.
The Respondent’s incorporation of the Complainant’s mark in full in the disputed domain name is evidence
that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks. ...
2025-08-14 - Case Details
In the present case, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s trademark, which was registered before the registration of 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...
2025-07-22 - Case Details
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s B
LIFE trademark 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...
2025-01-20 - Case Details
Based on the above and submitted evidence, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to
the Complainant’s Mark in which the Complainant has rights. Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been
satisfied.
...Discussion and Findings
A. General
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-06-07 - Case Details
page 3
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prevail in a UDRP dispute, the first element that a complainant must prove is that the disputed domain
name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the complainant 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...
2025-02-18 - Case Details
page 4
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 or Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-01-22 - Case Details