Complainant
The Complainant's contentions are the following.
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the ASOS trademark since it fully includes this trademark with the sole addition of the letters "de", which refer to Germany. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, in order to succeed in a UDRP proceeding, the Complainant must first prove that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2018-03-07 - Case Details
Complainant
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's CHRISTIAN LACROIX PARIS trade mark, which renders it identical thereto. ...The Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name which is confusingly similar to the Complainant's said trade marks as well as to its domain name shows a knowledge of and familiarity with the Complainant's brand and business. ...
2018-02-26 - Case Details
The Respondent did, however, send an email communication to the Center on January 8, 2021 and then on February 15, 2020 which displayed threats and strong language against the Complainant.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Once the ccTLD “.ir” is ignored (which is appropriate in this case), the disputed domain name consists of the whole of the Complainant’s registered word trademark NESCAFE followed by the word “shop”. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is not a licensee of, or otherwise affiliated with, the Complainant, and has not been authorized by the Complainant to use its NESCAFE word trademark. ...
2021-03-08 - Case Details
The Complainant further notes that the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s LAPP KABEL trademarks, and the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.net” does not affect the analysis of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
...Accordingly, the Panel has determined that the language of the proceeding shall be in English, and the Panel has issued this decision in English.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel acknowledges that the Complainant has established rights in the LAPP KABEL trademark in many territories around the world.
...
2021-03-03 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark; the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Substantive Elements of the Policy
The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use and registration. ...
2021-03-02 - Case Details
As regards the substance
The arguments of the Complainant on the three elements of the Policy can be summarized as follows:
First, the Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks as the sole difference is the addition of “eservices” followed by a hyphen. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant, under the first requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, needs to establish that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark in which it has rights.
...
2020-09-09 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Name is therefore identical or confusingly similar to the GEIGO Mark and that its use is intended to impersonate the Complainant, and to intercept and confuse consumers looking for GEIGO products or services. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name incorporates the GEICO Mark in its entirety. The Panel finds that the addition of the letter “j” does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity. ...
2020-09-03 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainants
The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainants’ DUPIXENT mark. They imitate DUPIXENT as their unique part. This is indicative of typosquatting.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Complainant owns rights in the DUPIXENT mark.
...
2020-08-03 - Case Details
On the basis of the arguments and evidence introduced by the Complainant, the Panel concludes as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in BIODERMA by virtue of its use and registration of the same as a trade mark.
...Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BIODERMA trade mark.
Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of the first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2021-01-27 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trademark ROTHSCHILD. This is because the disputed domain name incorporates the mark ROTHSCHILD in its entirety with the addition of generic terms “stock” and “investment”, which makes explicit reference to Complainant’s business. ...Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark and that the requirements of the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied.
...
2020-08-26 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the AVX trademark.
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant has satisfied the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2020-08-25 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the MICHELIN mark.
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant has satisfied the first element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2020-08-20 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1 states that registration of the REED SMITH Mark prima facie satisfies the
threshold requirement of Complainant having trademark rights for purposes of standing to file a UDRP case.
...The entirety of the REED SMITH Mark is reproduced within the Disputed Domain Name. Accordingly, the
Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the REED SMITH Mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7.
...
2026-04-24 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy functions primarily as a standing
requirement. ...Accordingly, the Panel f inds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
ALSTOM Trademark and the f irst element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been established.
...
2026-04-24 - Case Details
The Complainant contends the following:
Firstly, the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark in which
it has rights. The disputed domain name identically adopts the Complainant’s FORZA trade mark and
includes a non-distinctive and descriptive word, “merch”.
...Complainant
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-04-23 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that:
- The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
- The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect 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...
2026-04-22 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...WIPO Overview 3.1,
section 1.8.
Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trademark for the purposes of the
Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7.
...
2026-04-21 - Case Details
It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.1 and, where appropriate, will
decide consistently with the consensus views captured therein.
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...
2026-03-03 - 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...
2026-03-02 - 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...
2026-03-02 - Case Details