Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or 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 have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the relevant Trade Mark. Accordingly, the first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been made out.
...
2017-05-29 - 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 , , and are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CREDIT KARMA Mark.
...For the foregoing reasons the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s CREDIT KARMA Mark in which Complainant has exclusive rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
A Respondent may establish its rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, among other circumstances, by showing any of the following elements:
“(i) before any notice to you [Respondent] of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) you [Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you [Respondent] are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.”
...
2017-06-30 - 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 name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CREDIT KARMA trademark.
...For the foregoing reasons the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark CREDIT KARMA in which the Complainant has exclusive rights.
...
2017-06-30 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant makes the following contentions:
(i) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BLUE CHOICE Mark;
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights nor any legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element the Complainant must have trade or service mark rights and the Domain Name must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade or service mark.
...
2017-08-07 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that:
1) The Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BRUNELLO CUCINELLI trademark. The Disputed Domain Name is identical or similar to the trademark as it differs only by the addition of the letter “i” in the word “cucinielli”. ...Accordingly, the Panel shall proceed to consider each element in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence, it is accepted that the Complainant owns rights in the BRUNELLO CUCINELLI mark due to its registrations worldwide.
...
2018-08-23 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
i) Identical or Confusingly Similar
On the question of similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s trademark, Complainant asserts that the mere addition of a hyphen and suffix “lux” are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from its trademarks. ...Respondent
Respondent did not formally reply to the Complaint.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The distinguishing nature of the suffix “-lux” is arguable, but Respondent chose not to argue the issue. ...
2013-10-18 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.4 The Complainant is the owner of at least one word mark for DPSTREAM and the Domain Name comprises that term with the addition of the ".tv" TLD. The Domain Name is, therefore, at least confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights. The test here involves a comparison between the relevant domain name and the relevant trade mark. ...
2015-04-09 - Case Details
Rather, common law rights developed in a public figure’s
name are sufficient to show a mark identical or confusingly similar to a domain
name. The Complainant has achieved international renown due to her widespread
success in the music industry, she is entitled to pursue those who improperly
trade-off her rights. ...The Panel has considered the submissions and evidence and largely agrees with the Complainant’s submissions as outlined above.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain names are identical to the Complainant’s common law mark
established by the Complainant’s international reputation as a successful vocalist.
...
2003-11-12 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the complainant must prove each of the following elements:
(i) that the domain name in issue is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...The Panel shall deal with each element in turn.
A. Confusingly Similar to a Trademark
Complainant has shown that it holds, and at the time of registration of the Domain Name already held, an Austrian and an international trademark registration for a device (logo), of which the dominant part consists of the (stylized reproduction of) the domain name . ...
2003-11-12 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it is the owner of registered trademark rights in the mark DAVE’S
HOT CHICKEN. ...Respondent
7. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
8. Decision...
2026-04-09 - Case Details
Accordingly, the disputed domain names are all confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks for the
purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7 and 1.9.
...Respondents
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-02-27 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent did not respond to the Complaint.
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...
2026-05-15 - Case Details
The nominally different registrants will be referred to collectively below as the “Respondent”.
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...
2026-08-10 - Case Details
The Complainant also contends that as the disputed
domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark, they carry a high risk of implied affiliation
which does not support a finding that the respondents have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed
domain names. ...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.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2026-08-07 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its
SLIDESHARE trademark, in which it claims rights on the basis of registrations in multiple jurisdictions dating
back to at least 2012, as well as on continuous use since 2006. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2026-06-25 - Case Details
The Complainant maintains that the disputed domain names ,
and are virtually identical or at least confusingly
similar to the Complainant’s trademark MICHELIN. The Complainant adds that it is well established that
where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the
relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly
similar to that mark. ...Complainant
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-06-24 - Case Details
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the requested remedy can be granted if Complainant asserts and proves each of the following:
A. that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
B. the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
C. the Domain Name has been registered and was being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
First, the Panelist agrees with Respondent's observation in conformity with the panelists' majority view that the contents of the website under the Domain Name do not play a role in the assessment of the question whether the Domain Name is identically or confusingly similar to the F1 Trademarks (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions). ...
2009-08-05 - Case Details
While does not currently direct to a developed site, when typed into a web browser, the first suggested link is to the disputed domain name .
The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the SPECS name and mark, because they incorporate the entirety of the Complainant’s SPECS trade mark. ...Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the burden of proof lies with the complainant to establish that all these three elements are satisfied.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is identical to a registered trade mark which the Complainant has owned since 1990 (German Registration No. 116661). ...
2009-05-04 - Case Details
These three elements are discussed in turn as follows.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant provided substantial evidence of its rights in the registered word mark GRASSO. ...Having found that the mark is relevantly identical to the domain name, it is not strictly necessary for the Panel to also consider whether it is confusingly similar. However, for completeness, the Panel accepts that there is an obvious potential for the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark. ...
2009-04-24 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The case record indicates ample evidence to demonstrate that the Complainant has rights in its mark, LAQUINTA. The Panel determines that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's LAQUINTA mark. The insertion of the “positively” prefix before the mark does not defeat confusing similarity. ...
2008-12-24 - Case Details