A. Identical or Confusingly Similar (Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy)
6.4 The disputed domain name differs from Complainant’s marks only in
respect of the gTLD suffix “.info”. ...This Panel finds, therefore, that
the disputed domain name is identical to or at the very least confusingly similar
to marks in which Complainant has rights. See EAuto, L.L.C. v. Triple S.
Auto Parts d/b/a Kung Fu Yea Enterprises, Inc., WIPO
Case No. ...
2006-06-08 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy the Complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) That the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks or service marks in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) That the Respondent has no rights or no legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) That the domain name has been registered and is used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has several registered trademarks concerning the designations SUPERCLUBS and BREEZES, which substantially pre-date the Respondent’s registration of the domain names.
...
2006-05-17 - Case Details
It is also well established that the specific top level of a domain name such as “.com”, “.org” or “.net” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar (See Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood & Wilson, Sr., WIPO Case No. D2000-1525; Rollerblade, Inc. v. ...The Panel thus finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which Complainant has exclusive rights and that the Complainant has established the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2006-05-16 - Case Details
More specifically, the Complainant submits that: (i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to 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.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Domain Name
The Panel notes, even though more relevant under the
third element of the Policy, that the Complainant’s rights in its mark,
WAL-MART, predate the Respondent’s registration of the domain name in
dispute. ...
2006-05-10 - Case Details
It is also well established that the specific top
level of a domain name such as “.com”, “.org”, “.net”
or “.name” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining
whether it is identical or confusingly similar (See Magnum Piering, Inc.
v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr., WIPO
Case No. ...The Panel thus finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which Complainant has exclusive rights and that Complainant has established the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2006-05-04 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that:
- The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to various trademarks in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant argues that the disputed domain names totally reproduce the MERIDIEN mark a well as the most distinctive element of the Le MERIDIEN mark, in which the Complainant has rights. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s
contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel has no doubt that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the registered trademarks of the Complainant. ...
2005-05-23 - Case Details
They contend that the Respondent has intentionally chosen the
domain name which is identical and confusingly similar to ZYFLAMEND. The Complainant
refers to the findings of the Panel in Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name is identical to the Community and the various United States trade marks which are owned by the Complainant. ...
2006-04-27 - Case Details
Complainants
The Complainants contend that the domain name is confusingly similar with the trade marks ZEGNA owned by the Complainants. One of the main products of the Zegna Group are suits for men. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name is identical not only to the Complainants’ brand name but to numerous National, Community and International trade marks which are owned by one or more of the Complainants, some of which are referred to above. ...
2006-04-12 - Case Details
case=D2012-1909
page 5
6.2 Substantive Matters
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well established that the first element primarily serves 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...
2025-10-08 - Case Details
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's A.H.C trademark. The threshold question for confusing similarity under the UDRP involves the comparison between the trademark and the domain name itself to determine the likelihood of Internet user confusion. ...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark.
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...
2016-07-08 - Case Details
The domain name is identical, and therefore confusingly similar to, Complainant’s CAPE HARBOUR mark, and the domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CAPE HARBOUR mark, in the following manners:
a. ...The Panel concludes that the domain names "capeharbour.com" and "capeharbor.com" are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s "Cape Harbour" mark.
Complainant has met the burden of proving that Respondent is the registrant of domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights, and it has thus established the first of the three elements necessary to a finding that Respondent has engaged in abusive domain name registration.
...
2000-12-19 - 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 Respondent therefore has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.
5. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CBS 42 mark, and the Respondent offers services which are similar to those offered by the Complainant under its CBS 42 mark. ...Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules requires the Panel to:
“… decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any Rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant must first prove that it has “rights” in some trademark or service mark to which the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar.
...
2007-09-25 - Case Details
It can be presumed that the Respondent has never been commonly known by the domain name, as the domain name is confusingly similar to a famous mark of another.
11. The Respondent has registered and used the domain name in bad faith. ...Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy – domain name identical or confusingly similar to trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights
The Panel has little difficulty in finding this part of the Complaint proved. ...
2002-11-27 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends:
1. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Paris device mark. The Paris device mark is used for Wifi services, as is demonstrated by the official documents annexed at annex 4 to the Complaint. ...Had the Complainant cleared the “identical or confusingly similar” hurdle, the focus of the Panel's enquiry would then have shifted to the Respondent's conduct, including consideration of the Respondent's reasons for choosing the Domain Name, and the use it has made of the Domain Name. ...
2009-12-14 - Case Details
The onus of proving these elements is on the Complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element the Complainant must prove that it has trade or service mark rights and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade or service mark.
...Finally, there is no doubt that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s “Ustream” trade mark. The disputed domain name contains the entirety of the Complainant’s trade mark. ...
2008-08-04 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This first element requires that the Complainant demonstrate that (1) it has trademark rights and (2) the disputed domain name is identical or similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights
1. ...The disputed domain name consists of the expression “telhanorte”
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The second element requires the Complainant to prove that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
...
2015-04-07 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to be entitled to a transfer of a domain name, a complainant shall prove the following three elements:
(i) The 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 domain name; and
(iii) The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Annex 4 to the Complaint demonstrates European Community registrations of VICTOR CHANDLER and BETVICTOR trademarks, filed before the registration of the disputed domain names.
...
2013-04-22 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is, according to the submitted evidence, the owner of the registered trademark DIOR. ...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.
...
2013-04-16 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is, according to the submitted evidence, the owner of the registered trademark WELLENSTEYN. ...Having the above in mind, it is the opinion of this Panel that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark WELLENSTEYN and that the Complainant has proved the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2012-05-18 - Case Details