The disputed domain names are not identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which
the Complainant has rights.
The Respondent argues that the disputed domain names are not confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
marks, as the prefix “lu” changes both the pronunciation and meaning, creating a distinct term. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith...
2026-01-07 - Case Details
In the Panel’s view this is an example of an intentional misspelling of a
trademark that results in a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark, and a typical case of
typosquatting. Accordingly, The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s trademark THE ORDINARY. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-11-26 - Case Details
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s THE
ORDINARY 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...
2025-12-22 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that:
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The
Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its
HOLIDAY INN trademark, which it describes as “renowned” and “well-known”. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-01-15 - Case Details
a) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which
the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-
known GROUPE LE DUFF and LE DUFF trademarks. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-09-11 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that:
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The
Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name incorporates the SYNGENTA trademark in its entirety
and is confusingly similar to its domain name . ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2025-05-26 - 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...
2025-05-26 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain...
...Discussion and Findings
To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant...
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2025-06-30 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that;
(a) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which
the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is identical or at least confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s MICHELIN trademark since the disputed domain name reproduces the MICHELIN trademark
by replacing the order of the letters “i” and “c”. ...UDRP Panels consider domain names which consist of a common, obvious, or
intentional misspelling of a trademark to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the f irst
element (See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9). ...
2025-04-14 - 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...
2025-04-01 - Case Details
Considering these requirements, the Panel rules as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel holds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks
GROUPE SEB. ...The Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark and
the Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2025-04-23 - Case Details
Accordingly, this Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to a trademark in
which the Complainant has rights.
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...
2025-04-22 - Case Details
Further, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is also confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
PRINCIPAL mark as this mark is entirely incorporated 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...
2025-04-17 - Case Details
The third element a complainant must establish
is that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
page 3
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establish that the disputed domain names are
identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark as it includes the
Complainant’s trademark in its entirety combined with the word “my”. ...
2022-09-16 - Case Details
The Complainant believes the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SOREL
trademark. The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its well-known
trademark SOREL as they incorporate the whole of Complainant’s SOREL trademark. ...It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, where appropriate, will
decide consistent with the WIPO Overview 3.0.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered SOREL trademarks
owned by the Complainant. ...
2022-08-30 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends, in relevant part, as follows:
- The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SODEXHO Trademark because “[t]he only
difference between the signs is the reversal of the letters H and X”; and that it is confusingly similar to the
SODEXO Trademark because “[t]he only difference between the signs is the addition of the letter H”...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-04-14 - 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.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-09-05 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in the Complainant’s Trademark, based on its various
trademark registrations listed above in Section 4.
...As such, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
Trademark, and accordingly, paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2022-09-05 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in the Complainant’s Trademark, based on its various
trademark registrations listed above in Section 4.
...As such, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
Trademark, and accordingly, paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2022-06-03 - Case Details
The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s FIDELITY
trademark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established paragraph 4(a)(i) of the
Policy.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-06-02 - Case Details