Discussion and Findings
The Complainant must show, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; that the Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the Domain Name; and that it was registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has satisfied the threshold requirement of having trademark
rights. ...
2005-08-04 - Case Details
The Respondent does not contest the Complainant’s rights in its trademarks, and takes no position as to whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to those marks.
The Respondent claims that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...The Complainant must prove each of these three elements, which are discussed in turn as follows.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There is no dispute that the Complainant has registered rights in its trademarks, including the trademark HSM in a number of jurisdictions. ...
2007-05-16 - Case Details
Further, according to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences from Respondent’s
failure to submit a Response as it considers appropriate.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
First, 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...
2024-11-25 - Case Details
Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the
language of the proceeding shall be English.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is identical to the registered trademark VOLVO PENTA
which the Complainant owns.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is identical to the registered trademark VOLVO PENTA which the Complainant owns.
...
2025-06-03 - Case Details
It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, where appropriate, will
decide consistent with the consensus views stated 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...
2025-04-08 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel finds
the Complainant’s marks are recognisable within the Domain Names and that each of the Domain Names is
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section
1.7.
6.9 Although the addition of other terms (in this case, the words “shop” and in the case of one of the
Domain Names, the term “co”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds
the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and
the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...Respondents
6. Discussion and Findings
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
7. Decision...
2025-04-23 - Case Details
page 4
6. Discussion and Findings
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...
2025-05-30 - Case Details
The Claimant claims that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademark that it owns.
The only difference between the Trademark of the Claimant and the Disputed Domain Name is the fourth
letter of the respective words “BLICK” vs. ...The allocation or use of the domain name constitutes a clear infringement of a Right in a
distinctive sign which the Claimant owns under the law of Switzerland
The Claimant alleges that the use of the Disputed Domain Name constitutes a violation of the Trademark
within the meaning of Article 13 STA on the ground that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar
with the Trademark. In this case, it is clear that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar with the
Trademark because there is only one letter of difference between the Trademark and the Disputed Domain
Name and because of the resulting similarity between them (visually and phonetically).
...
2022-05-12 - Case Details
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights over the SKYSCANNER trademark duly registered in several jurisdictions across the world (Annex 2 to the Complaint).
...For the reasons above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are either identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a nonexclusive list of circumstances that may indicate the Respondents’ rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. ...
2021-10-28 - Case Details
He says the price he sought for it is in line with the price he has received for other similar generic domain names.
6. Discussion and Findings
Substantive Matters
To succeed, in accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must satisfy the Panel in respect of the Disputed Domain Name that:
(i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical with 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 Disputed Domain Name; and
(iii) The Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the REINDL trademark. The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is identical to this trademark. ...
2019-03-21 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant asserts that the mere addition of the word “brokers” to the disputed domain name does not meaningfully distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s trademark, but rather only heightens website traffic confusion between the two. ...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered trademark ESURE.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant having indicated it did not find any such rights or legitimate interests, and having made out a prima facie case, it is up to the Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. ...
2019-02-12 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Trade Marks, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, and the disputed domain names were registered and are 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 Marks acquired through use and registration.
...
2021-07-07 - Case Details
The Complainant says the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark. The string “ibm” in the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark. ...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 Panel has perused the supporting evidence produced by the Complainant in respect of the claimed trademark registrations. ...
2021-03-17 - Case Details
In Knot We Trust LTD,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0340.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Ownership of a trademark registration is generally sufficient evidence that a complainant has the requisite rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...With Complainant’s rights in the ONLYFANS mark established, the remaining question under the first element of the Policy is whether the disputed domain name (typically disregarding the generic Top-Level Domain such as “.info”) is identical or confusingly similar with Complainant’s mark. See B & H Foto & Electronics Corp. v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. / Joseph Gross,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-02-09 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name incorporates Complainant’s mark PEWDIEPIE in its entirety. This is sufficient to establish confusing similarity (Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...D2002-0122).
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the PEWDIEPIE mark of Complainant.
Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2021-01-27 - Case Details
The burden for Complainant, under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, is to show: (i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; (ii) that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is undisputed that Complainant has rights over the CARREFOUR mark.
Since the addition of a generic Top-Level Domain in a domain name is technically required, it is well established that such element may be disregarded where assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark. ...
2021-05-27 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Trade Marks, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, and the disputed domain names were registered and are 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 Marks acquired through use and registration.
...
2021-07-21 - Case Details
The Complainant concludes that by reason that the disputed domain names incorporate the whole of the term ENCANA Trademark or the ENCANA element in the ENCANA Trademarks, the two are therefore confusingly similar to said ENCANA Trademark which has been misappropriated and further adds that the gTLD “.company” and “.world” serve to enhance the confusion since consumers are likely to be misled into believing that the disputed domain names resolve to a website operated by the Complainant.
...The Respondent did not file any Response to nor comments on the Complaint.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has clearly established that it owns the ENCANA Trademarks and has used the same since 1902 to achieve a group of well-known and highly distinctive Trademarks. ...
2018-12-18 - Case Details
Complainant
(i) The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the AIROH and AIROH HELMET trade marks in which the Complainant has rights. They are also similar to the Complainant’s domain names , and .
...The Panel therefore determines that English shall apply as the language of the proceeding.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it has registered as well as unregistered rights in the trade marks AIROH and AIROH HELMET. ...
2018-05-18 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to the submitted evidence, the Complainant is the owner of the registered trademark MOTHERCARE. ...Having the above in mind, it is the opinion of the Panel that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and that the Complainant has proved the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2017-02-22 - Case Details