A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain
name is confusingly similar to the very well-known ROTOPLAS mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO
Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
...
2023-12-21 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain
name is confusingly similar to the very well-known ROTOPLAS mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
...
2023-12-21 - Case Details
On the basis of the evidence introduced by Complainant and in particular with regard to the content of the
relevant provisions of the Policy, paragraphs 4(a) - (c), the Panel concludes as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the BADAPTOR marks. The Panel finds that the essential
part of the disputed domain name “badapter” is a mere misspelling of Complainant’s trademark BADAPTOR
by replacing the letter “o” with the letter “e”. ...In summary, Respondent, by choosing to register and use the disputed domain name, which is a deliberate
misspelling of Complainant’s BADAPTOR mark, and is confusingly similar to the BADAPTOR mark, intended
to ride on the goodwill of this trademark. In the absence of evidence to the contrary and rebuttal from
Respondent, the choice of the disputed domain name and the use of the disputed domain name are
indicative of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...
2023-09-13 - Case Details
The
additional components do not prevent the disputed domain names from being found confusingly similar to its
mark;
- the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-04-11 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has shown that it has registered rights in the Trade Marks. The Domain Name is
confusingly similar to the Trade Marks as it incorporates the FB Trade Mark 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...
2024-05-30 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to establish the disputed
domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark in which it has rights.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-04-03 - Case Details
Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that it will
(1) accept the Complaint in English and the Respondent’s communications in Korean; (2) consider any
relevant materials in both Korean and English; and (3) issue a decision in English.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, whether the Complainant has rights in a relevant trademark and,
second, whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
...Furthermore, in determining whether a domain name is identical or
confusingly similar to a trademark, the gTLD “.com” is typically disregarded (see Proactiva Medio Ambiente,
S.A. v. ...
2025-05-09 - Case Details
Failure to demonstrate any one element will
result in denial of the Complaint.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Discussion and Findings
6.1 Unsolicited Supplemental Filing
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-01-28 - Case Details
In the circumstances, the considerations discussed
in WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition
(“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.18 are not 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
7. Decision...
2025-01-21 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Language of the Proceeding
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-12-06 - Case Details
Thus, the Panel will deal with each of the requirements in turn.
page 5
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The panel finds that the entirety of the INSTA mark is reproduced within both disputed domain names with
the addition of the terms “blogs” in the disputed domain name , respectively “views”, in the
disputed domain name , both descriptive for the Complainant’s activity, which does not
prevent the finding that both disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark
INSTA. Accordingly, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the INSTA mark for the
purposes of the Policy. ...
2025-06-06 - Case Details
7. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
7. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
8. Decision...
2024-09-26 - 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...
2024-09-25 - 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...
2024-10-15 - Case Details
The Respondent did not
contest these assertions. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks
and contains a term pertaining to the Complainant’s industry (i.e. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-09-30 - 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
The Complainant is of the opinion that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its SPEAKY
trademark.
It further argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain
name.
...The Panel further finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered
SPEAKY trademark, as it fully incorporates the Complainant’s trademark. ...
2022-08-23 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the LIDL trade mark in which
the Complainant has rights as the Domain Names incorporate the entire LIDL trade mark with the mere
addition of an hyphen “-” and (i) the country identifier “fr” for France for two of the Domain Names and (ii) the
acronym “b2b” (for “business to business”) for the third Domain Name. ...The second point that has to be considered is whether the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar
to the trade mark LIDL in which the Complainant has rights.
At the second level, the Domain Names incorporate the Complainant’s LIDL trade mark in its entirety with the
mere addition of an hyphen “-” and (i) the country identifier “fr” for France for two of the Domain Names and
(ii) the acronym “b2b” (for “business to business”) for the third Domain Name. ...
2022-05-24 - Case Details