Complainant
The Complainant contends that it is the registered owner of the IQOS mark in numerous jurisdictions, including China. The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its IQOS mark. The disputed domain names reproduce the IQOS mark in its entirety, with a non-distinctive numeral “9” or the domain extension “wiki”. ...Accordingly, the Panel will proceed with issuing this Decision in English.
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has adduced evidence to demonstrate its established rights in the IQOS mark.
...
2021-12-10 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has provided evidence establishing that it has trademark rights in the ZENNI, ZENNI OPTICAL, and ZENNI.COM marks through registrations in the United States and other jurisdictions. ...In comparing Complainant’s marks with the disputed domain names, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks. Each disputed domain name comprises Complainant’s ZENNI or ZENNI OPTICAL mark in their entirety.
...
2021-11-01 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to its registered trademarks.
With reference to rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, the Complainant states that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, not does it have any prior rights in the Complainant’s trademarks.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights over the trademark PARISTECH based on the trademark registrations cited under section 4 above and the related trademark certificates submitted as Annex 6 to the Complaint.
...
2021-11-11 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ODASEVA mark.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence presented, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the ODASEVA mark.
...
2022-01-04 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) that the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights over the trademarks ARAMCO and SAUDI ARAMCO based on the trademark registrations cited under section 4 above and the additional trademark certificates submitted as annex 3 to the Complaint.
...
2020-11-06 - Case Details
Complainant
Key contentions of the Complaint may be summarized as follows:
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the K WAY trademark, as it fully includes this mark, adding the geographical term “usa”. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, and the first element of the Policy under paragraph 4(a)(i) has been satisfied. ...
2021-05-21 - Case Details
On the other hand, the proceeding may proceed expeditiously in English.
6.2. Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has adduced evidence to demonstrate its established rights in the SODEXO trade mark.
...Section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states that “mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith”. ...
2020-11-13 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is, according to the submitted evidence, the owner of the registered trademark SODEXO. ...It is standard practice to disregard the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) under the confusingly similar test.
Having the above in mind, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark and that the Complainant has proved the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2020-10-13 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant alleges that the Disputed Domain Name consists of the Complainant’s well-known and distinctive Trademark and that it is generally accepted that the suffix, such as “.tel”, is irrelevant when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark as it is a functional element. As a result, the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s Trademark.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has rights to a trademark or service mark as reflected in the Trademark.
...
2019-07-09 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant contends that it has numerous registrations of the ZANUSSI Mark. Prior UDRP decisions have held that registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive. ...The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Zanussi Mark. Complainant has made the requisite showing under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2019-05-31 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed in this administrative proceeding, the Complainant must prove that:
(i) the disputed 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 disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...In considering these elements, paragraph 15(a) of the Rules provides that the Panel shall decide the Complaint on the basis of statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules, and any other rules or principles of law that the Panel deems applicable.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element has a low threshold for it merely serves as a standing requirement under the Policy. ...
2019-05-27 - 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
7. Decision...
2025-07-16 - Case Details
Substantive Matters
In order to prevail, the Complainant must demonstrate that it has satisfied the requirements of paragraph
4(a) of the Policy:
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a “Relevant Identifier” in which the
Complainant has rights; and
(ii) The disputed domain name was registered or has subsequently been used in bad faith.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Registered or Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-07-15 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Discussion and Findings
(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-11-29 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-11-12 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Amwittools BV
Case No. DNL2024-0013
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests...
2024-11-18 - Case Details
On the basis of the arguments and evidence introduced by the Complainant, the Panel concludes as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in GEBERIT by virtue of its use and registration of the same as a trade mark.
...The addition of the country code Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.cc” (for Cocos Island) does not impact the analysis of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark in this case.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical with the Complainant’s trade mark.
...
2019-10-25 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has rights to a trademark or service mark as reflected in the Trademark.
A comparison between the Disputed Domain Name and the Trademark shows that the Disputed Domain Name is clearly confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademark, the only difference consisting in the addition of the terms “my” and “holdings” in the Disputed Domain Name.
...
2020-01-24 - Case Details
i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
That the Complainant is the lawful owner of a trademark registration for INEXMODA in Colombia since 1993, which is six years prior to the registration of the disputed domain name by the Respondent.
...DMX2012-0013; and Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. null John Zuccarini, Country Walk,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0487).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided evidence showing that it owns trademark registrations for INEXMODA in Colombia, since 1993, and in other countries such as Ecuador, Mexico, Panama, Peru and Venezuela, in various classes.
...
2019-12-23 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
To succeed, in accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must satisfy the Panel that:
(i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical with or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(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 Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the FEEV trademark.
The Disputed Domain Name is identical to the FEEV trademark. ...
2020-01-08 - Case Details