Complainant contends that Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to the MCFLY trademarks. Complainant contends that the addition of the suffix “usa” to the mark MCFLY does not alter a finding of confusing similarity in the trademark, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and that the domain name is being used in bad faith.
...Respondent contends that, “since McFly/Mighty McFly was not a party to the [coexistence] agreement we did not even have a copy of it at the time that the registration was made” and therefore the registration was not made in bad faith.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations in Europe and the UK for the mark MCFLY. ...
2006-05-19 - Case Details
Trademark rights
Complainant has provided sufficient evidence of its right to the trademark SHL GROUP.
B. Identical or confusingly similar
The domain name is similar to Complainant’s trademark SHL GROUP, with the only difference being the addition of the suffix “.com” and the addition of a hyphen. ...From the above follows that the domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark SHL GROUP.
C. Bad Faith
Respondent registered the domain name at issue in 2001, whereas Complainant’s
trademark was only registered in 2006. ...
2006-05-15 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the Domain Name at issue is confusingly similar to the trademark SWAROVSKI owned by the Complainant, since the Domain Name at issue incorporates a slightly misspelled version of the Complainant’s name and trademark, interchanging the order of the letters “o” and “v”. ...The Panel deals with each of these requirements in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has obtained trademark protection for SWAROVSKI. Indeed the
Complainant has registered its trademark SWAROVSKI in several jurisdictions
as noted above. ...
2006-04-10 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that:
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which it has rights.
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There is no doubt in this case that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's trade mark CAMARGO CORREA in which it has rights. ...
2009-06-15 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant submits:
The Respondent has registered a domain name which is clearly identical to the trademark of the Complainant which could cause confusion in the minds of potential customers looking to find the website of the Complainant.
...In the Panel’s view this is itself evidence of bad faith since the Respondent, being associated with betting activities and being based in the United Kingdom, clearly must have been aware of the Complainant’s rights and is preparing to use a confusingly similar domain name in relation to an activity similar to that of the Complainant. In the Panel’s view these factors point to use in bad faith. ...
2007-06-13 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar with its trademarks, that the respondent has no legitimate right in the disputed domain names and that these have evidently been registered and are used in bad faith, in order to unduly benefit from the Complainant’s mark notoriousness and misdirecting traffic resulting from the typographical errors of those seeking the Complainant’s mark on the Internet.
...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has brought conclusive evidence that it owns trademark rights in the mark NATIONWIDE.
...
2007-10-10 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established its rights in the INTEREPARGNE trademark, by virtue of the Trademarks.
The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or at least confusingly similar to the Trademarks given that it replicates the French INTEREPARGNE trademark in its entirety and the word element of the INTEREPARGNE international trademark owned by the Complainant.
...
2007-10-02 - Case Details
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements are satisfied:
- The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights; and
- The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
- The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...The Trading Force Limited,
WIPO Case No. D2002-1038.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks.
...
2010-04-08 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is not only confusingly similar but identical to the Complainant’s mark MENTOS, a fancy expression protected by the Complainant’s trademark registrations all around the world. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The panel finds that Complainant’s registered trademarks are distinctive in his field of activity and have reached strong reputation and notoriety in many countries. ...
2011-01-24 - Case Details
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove to the Panel that the following three circumstances are cumulatively met in order to obtain the transfer of the disputed domain name:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) the Respondent does not hold rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used by the Respondent in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There are two requirements that a complainant must establish under this paragraph, namely: that it has rights in a trademark, and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark.
...
2010-07-27 - 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 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...
2026-02-12 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to divest the Respondent of a disputed domain name, the
Complainant must demonstrate each of the following:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical 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.
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.
page 3
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.
...
2026-03-16 - 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
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-03-04 - 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
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-10-30 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy 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...
2025-12-09 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s mark; that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed
domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
...Accordingly, the Complainant’s request for consolidation is granted.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element under the Policy functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2026-02-10 - Case Details
It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, where appropriate, will
decide consistently 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...
2025-05-16 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that, under the first element, the Mark and the disputed domain name are
confusingly similar with the Respondent only having “try” added to the beginning of the Mark which, together
with the country-code top-level domain extension “.co”, comprises the disputed domain name. ...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. ...
2025-05-09 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...In the present case, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark VITO in which the
Complainant has rights since it incorporates the entirety of the mark VITO and only adds the descriptive term
“energies”.
...
2025-12-02 - 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.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the f irst 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...
2024-02-05 - Case Details