Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(i) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its BROOKFIELD
PROPERTIES Marks.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-09-16 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been met and the Domain Name should be transferred.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that it has established significant trade mark rights in CLEAN & CLEAR which predate the registration of the Domain Name. ...Failure to prove any one of these factors is fatal to the Complaint.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established that it has rights to the trade mark CLEAN & CLEAR.
...
2012-01-09 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainants contend that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the
Complainants’ trademarks. The disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the registered
BRISBANE 2032 trademarks and the dominant feature of the BRISBANE 2032 OLYMPIC GAMES
trademark and is therefore identical or confusingly similar to these trademarks. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
D. Rights or Legitimate Interests
E. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-03-13 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the marks in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Paragraph 14(b) permits the Panel to draw appropriate inferences from such default.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant's marks, which include the CIT designation, are widely-known in the financial service industry. ...
2009-07-14 - Case Details
The Complainant took the view that the product’s branding and packaging rendered it confusingly similar to the Complainant’s “Sesame Snaps” product and on August 13, 2012 launched an action against K-Max Corp. in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for unfair competition, trade mark infringement, passing off and copyright infringement. ...Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SESAME SNAPS trade mark registration, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names and that the Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
...
2016-12-06 - Case Details
Complainant
(1) The domain names in dispute are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s FLAMINGO, FLAMINGO (Stylized), FLAMINGO PLAYERS CLUB and FLAMINGO LAS VEGAS trademarks in which the Complainant has prior rights because:
(a) The Complainant’s above-listed registered marks are incontestable.
...The fact that Respondent proceeded with the registration
of domain names that incorporate Complainant’s Marks in their entirety
or that are confusingly similar to them supports a finding of registration and
use in bad faith. Cortefiel, S.A. v. Miguel Garcia Quintas, WIPO
Case No. ...
2005-06-21 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CGC mark, which is recognizable in the disputed domain name and is the dominant part thereof. ...The mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. ...
2022-01-26 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to trademarks or service marks in which the Complainant has prior rights for the following reasons:
1. ... combines terms with English-only definitions, namely, “pharm”, an abbreviation of “pharmaceuticals,” and “Celgen”, a coined term which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CELGENE mark and company name and has no known Chinese definition or transliteration.
3. ...
2013-09-20 - Case Details
Respondent's employment with Complainant terminated on March 11, 2014.
(i) Identical or confusingly similar
Complainant contends the Domain Name is identical or at least confusingly similar to trademarks in which Complainant has rights. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel must first determine whether the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. ...
2015-03-10 - Case Details
Other circumstances may apply to whether the requirements of paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and (iii) are met.
7.1 Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel has no hesitation in finding that the Complainant has rights in the trademark AMARYL by virtue of its numerous registrations around the world The question is whether the disputed domain names are similar to the mark. ...The words BRAND and BRANDY might be held to be confusingly similar were it not for the fact that each has a well-known dictionary meaning. In this case however, neither the trademark, nor the botanical name, is so well known as to avoid or reduce confusion. ...
2005-12-09 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The Respondent’s website also appears to
reproduce or imitate the Complainant’s branding, product imagery, layout, and written content.
Such use of a domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark to operate a website that
gives the impression of being operated by, affiliated with, or authorized by the Complainant does not
constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under the Policy.
...
2026-06-18 - Case Details
The Complainant argues that the Respondents deliberately chose to successively register fourteen domain
names confusingly similar to a distinctive and globally well-known trademark. It is clear evidence of bad faith
registration. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-12-10 - Case Details
The SUNWIN trademark and logo have been extensively used to identify the Complainant and its services.
The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the SUNWIN trademark in which the Complainant has
rights, because they incorporate this trademark in its entirety, and the addition of the respective suffixes is
not sufficient to prevent a finding of confusing similarity.
...Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different disputed domain
name registrants (referred to herein as “the Respondents”) in a single proceeding.
6.2. Substantive issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2026-05-26 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different disputed domain
name registrants (referred to below as “the Respondent”) in a single proceeding.
6.2. Substantive Matter
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondents
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-06-29 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain names are not identical to the Complainant’s trade mark RAY-BAN. ...Therefore the Panel holds that the disputed domain names , , and are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark RAY-BAN.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use its marks in any way or to register a domain name incorporating its trade mark RAY-BAN. ...
2011-03-29 - Case Details
The Panel will now review each of the three cumulative elements set forth in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy to determine whether Complainant has established each of the three elements required therein.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concurs with the opinion of several prior UDRP panels which have held that, in certain circumstances, the fact that a domain name wholly incorporates a complainant’s registered trademark, may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy. ...In addition, it has been consistently decided that the addition of generic or descriptive terms to an otherwise distinctive trademark name is to be considered confusingly similar to the registered trademark. V&S Vin&Sprit AhB v. Giovanni Pastore,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0926; Thomson Broadcast and Media Solution Inc., Thomson v. ...
2012-02-20 - 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 Complainant has proved that it owns trademark registrations for BRONKAID in the United States and Canada.
...In the Panel's view, the Respondent's use of the disputed domain name is inherently misleading, and the similar use of identical and confusingly similar domain names to lure Internet users to sites hosting links to providers of competing products or services has been held by numerous other panels to be prima facie evidence of bad faith (see inter alia American Automobile Association, Inc. v Texas International Property Associates,
WIPO Case No. ...
2010-08-12 - Case Details
Respondent next asserts that its domain name is not identical or confusingly
similar to Complainant’s registered trademark in part because the Complainant
does not use the term "Ultimate Fighting Championship" but rather
uses only the acronym "UFC."
...A. The Domain Name is Identical or Confusingly Similar to the
"Ultimate Fighting Championship" Trademark
Respondent argues that ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP is not a protectable
mark in which Complainant has rights. ...
2001-06-15 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
In order for the Panel to decide to grant the remedy requested by the Complainant
under the Policy it is necessary that the Complainant prove, as required
by paragraph 4 (a) of the Policy, that:
(i) the contested domain name is identical or confusingly similar
to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect
of the domain name; and
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in
bad faith.
...The Panel therefore concludes that the contested domain names are confusingly
similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights and that the Complainant
has fulfilled the requirements of Paragraph 4 (a) (i) of the Policy.
...
2002-07-02 - Case Details
Modern Limited’s behaviour corresponds to a pattern to register domain names identical to, or confusingly similar with, famous names and trademarks. This constitutes bad faith registration pursuant to Paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy.
...Modern Limited has been engaged in a pattern of registering domain names confusingly similar to well known marks and on a number of occasions has been the subject of adverse findings in relation to such domain names in complaints under the UDRP.
...
2005-01-04 - Case Details