A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This question raises two issues: (1) does the Complainant have rights in a trademark or service mark; and (2) is the domain name identical or confusingly similar to such trademark or service mark.
...Concerning the second issue, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademarks. First, the Respondent’s domain names incorporate the Complainant’s trademarks in their entirety. ...
2013-04-05 - 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.
...D2004-0117 (a domain name incorporating a well known trademark combined with a geographically descriptive term is confusingly similar to the trademark); Inter-IKEA Systems B.V. v. Hoon Huh,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0438 (the addition of the term “korea” in does not prevent the domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark).
...
2014-04-28 - Case Details
Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLUESCOPE Mark. Complainant observes that the Disputed Domain Name fully incorporates the BLUESCOPE trademark. ...Prior UDRP panels have recognized that the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety may be sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered mark. AT&T Corp. v. William Gormally,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0758 (finding confusingly similar to ATT); Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. ...
2014-04-28 - Case Details
Having considered the Complaint and the available evidence, the Panel finds the following:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry – a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trade mark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trade mark.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2014-04-17 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Disputed Domain Name differs from the Complainant’s registered Marks in that the letter “o” is omitted in the Disputed Domain Name.
The Panel is prepared to find that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s WORDPRESS Marks.
It is a long-established precedent that a minor misspelling of a complainant’s trademark, or the addition of generic or other words creates a confusingly similar domain name. ...
2013-10-16 - Case Details
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to many registered trademarks in which Complainant has rights. Thus, the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2013-10-14 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark ROLAND GARROS, being a combination of the term “tickets” with the Complainant’s trademark ROLAND GARROS.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant is the owner of the trademark ROLAND GARROS both by registration and acquired reputation and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark ROLAND GARROS.
...
2014-01-30 - Case Details
The Panel is satisfied that the registrant of record for the disputed domain name is the Respondent and will,
therefore, proceed to analyze whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisf ied.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant must establish rights in a trademark or service
mark and secondly establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark
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...
2023-11-24 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has accredited rights to the “CORNING Trademarks”.
The Panelist notes that the disputed domain name includes the trademark CORNING in its entirety.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has accredited rights to the “CORNING Trademarks”.
The Panelist notes that the disputed domain name includes the trademark CORNING in its entirety.
...
2023-11-24 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain names are, indeed, confusingly similar to the ISAE and SUPAERO trademarks, as they
are entirely incorporated in the disputed domain names. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The current passive holding of the disputed domain names is also evidence of bad faith from the Respondent. ...
2023-11-16 - Case Details
See section 4.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel
Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under the first requirement, the Complainant must establish that the Domain Names are identical or
confusingly similar to the trademark 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...
2023-12-01 - Case Details
Many UDRP panels have found that a
disputed domain name is confusingly similar where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the
disputed domain name. See section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-10-24 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it has well-established rights in the GEICO 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...
2023-10-24 - 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. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar...
2023-10-17 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP, the Complainant must demonstrate that the disputed domain
name is (i) identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, (ii) 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...
2023-08-30 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
SKECHERS trademark as it comprises of the SKECHERS trademark in its entirety. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-08-28 - Case Details
The Panel is satisfied that the registrant of record for the disputed domain name is the Respondent and will
therefore proceed to analyze whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant must establish rights in a trademark or service
mark and subsequently establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to said
mark.
...Hence, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark
ARCELORMITTAL pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2023-09-01 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s 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...
2023-08-31 - Case Details
See section 4.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions,
Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under the first element, the Complainant must establish that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly
similar to the trademark 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...
2024-04-23 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), the Complainant shall prove that the Disputed Domain Name is
identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...Marcellod Russo, WIPO Case No. D2001-1049 (finding
the domain names confusingly similar to the VOGUE mark); Yahoo! Inc. v. Microbiz, Inc., WIPO Case No.
D2000-1050 (finding and confusingly similar to the YAHOO! ...
2023-07-20 - Case Details