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...
2024-10-15 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the f irst 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...
2025-08-18 - Case Details
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules directs the Panel to decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and
documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that
it deems applicable.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element that the Complainant must establish is that the disputed domain name is identical with, or
confusingly similar to, the Complainant’s trademark rights.
...Factual Background
5. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
6. Decision...
2024-06-24 - 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...
2024-06-20 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer
of the Disputed Domain Name, as follows:
(i) The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, in which the
Complainant has rights.
The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its STATOIL trademark,
because the STATOIL trademark is included in its entirety, being the most distinctive element 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...
2024-07-16 - Case Details
Complainant asserts that the dominant part of the disputed domain name is identical to its well-known registered LEGO mark, and that the disputed domain name as a whole is confusingly similar to its well-known registered LEGO mark.
Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's LEGO mark.5
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in a trademark and service mark, and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to that trademark and service mark.
...
2010-03-02 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided evidence of ownership of the trademark containing SENTIMENTE.RO (SENTIMENTE.RO, ceea ce conteaza, i.e., "sentiments [dot] ro "underscored by motto "what actually matters").
...In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2009-03-12 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark, and that the Respondent is making an unauthorized use the domain name to offer clothing and other items bearing the NASCAR mark. ...International Electronic Communications Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s NASCAR mark, in which the Complainant unquestionably has established rights through registration and continuous and extensive use. ...
2007-12-07 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its name and principal trademark, HURRIYET.
The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. ...Respondent
The Respondent denies that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, but does not challenge the existence of the Complainant’s trademark rights. ...
2008-04-04 - Case Details
The Respondent contends that the Domain Name is not confusingly similar to TRAILBLAZER LEARNING because the Domain Name is not a misspelling of TRAILBLAZER LEARNING and does not contain the phrase TRAILBLAZER LEARNING. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Before the Panel can make a determination as to whether the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights, the Panel must first be convinced that the Complainant indeed has rights in a trademark or service mark. ...
2006-09-06 - Case Details
All three elements must be present before a complainant can succeed in an administrative proceeding under the Policy.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Respondent’s domain name consists of the Complainant’s registered trademark PFIZER preceded by the laudatory term, “thanks.”
...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 has offered no evidence that it holds a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. ...
2007-04-30 - Case Details
In the view of the Complainant, this circumstance supports the finding that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of registering domain names identical or confusingly similar to registered trademarks, therefore preventing the trademark owners from reflecting their trademarks in these domain names.
...In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the Domain Name is identical / confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2009-08-05 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its registered BERNZ O MATIC trademark and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in so using the mark.
...Some UDRP decisions in proceedings involving “criticism” websites (or “gripe sites”) hold that fair use and free speech principles do not justify labeling such a website with a domain name confusingly similar to a trademark, because of the potential for misleading the public as to source or affiliation. ...
2009-03-06 - Case Details
The Complainant maintains that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the KRAFT mark, as it incorporates that mark in its entirety and also is merely a singular version the Complainant’s website domain name , a website the Complainant designed to be visited by children and their parents. ...International Electronic Communications
Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name
is confusingly similar to Complainant’s KRAFT mark
for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...
2006-01-19 - Case Details
International Electronic Communications
Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the
MARTHA STEWART marks, in which the Complainant clearly has established rights
through registration and use. ...D2000-0662 (domain name incorporating mark in its entirety is confusingly
similar). The Panel finds that to be the case here. Accordingly, the Complainant
has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2006-01-12 - Case Details
Notwithstanding the Respondent’s request that the Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant, the Panel believes that the facts of the case are such as to warrant a finding being made on the public record.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There is no dispute between the parties that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...As indicated above, the Respondent does not deny the existence of the Complainant’s trade mark rights and does not deny that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark.
The Domain Name, which is substantially identical to the Complainant’s name and trade mark, has no obvious association of any kind with the Respondent and the Respondent does not seek to say that it does. ...
2008-09-18 - Case Details
The dispute is properly within the scope of the Policy and the Panel has jurisdiction to decide the dispute.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is required to prove that it has rights in a trademark, and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
...The Panel finds the remainder of the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in the terms of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...
2009-09-07 - Case Details
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its WEBER mark because the disputed domain name fully incorporates that trademark and adds a term which identifies a well-known product of Complainant.
...The Panel determines that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's WEBER trademark.
Furthermore, Complainant alleges that its WEBER trademark is well known among purchasers and users of carburetors. ...
2009-12-07 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant's distinctive MAHINDRA Marks in which the Complainant has rights.
...It is well established that a domain name that wholly incorporates a trademark may be confusingly similar to such trademark for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of common or generic words (cf. ...
2009-04-15 - Case Details
Michael Robertson,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0009).
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel agrees with Complainant that Respondent's domain names and are confusingly similar to Complainant's BWIN mark.
...The Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the registered trademark of Complainant and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy therefore are fulfilled.
...
2009-04-14 - Case Details