The majority of the Panel finds the following:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In this case the contested domain name consist of the well known trademark AIR FRANCE and the addition of the generic term “sucks”. ...This Panel finds that the , domain name is confusingly similar to the established international trademark AIR FRANCE. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy Paragraph 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
...
2005-06-07 - Case Details
In the last year the Complainants have been selling approximately 1000 cars per month under the JAM JAR mark.
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainants’ JAM JAR and JAMJAR.COM trademarks in which the Complainants have rights in the UK and Europe. It is also confusingly similar to the domain name which was registered by the Complainants on April 18, 2000, and is a central focus of the Complainants’ business today. ...
2002-10-22 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name consists of Complainant’s trademark CLARINS followed by the geographically descriptive word “Australia.”. ...D2000-0150 ( found confusingly similar to WAL-MART trademark). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CLARINS trademark.
...
2014-01-31 - Case Details
The Panel finds that all three of these elements have been met in this case.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element requires the Panel to consider two issues: first, whether the Complainant has rights in a
relevant mark; and, second, whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that
mark. ...“Domain names which constitute typo-squatting
are confusingly similar by definition; it is this similarity which makes them attractive.” Dell Computer Corp. v.
...
2022-07-12 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent's domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark. Specifically, the Complainant asserts:
(1) The Respondent's domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark seeing that they incorporate the mark in its entirety...The Respondent registered and is using the domain names in bad faith (Paragraph 4(a)(iii)).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There are two requirements that a complainant must establish under this paragraph; that it has rights in a trade or service mark, and that the domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the marks.
...
2009-12-11 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar to a Trademark
There are two requirements that a Complainant must establish under this paragraph: that it has rights in a trade or service mark, and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the marks.
...Hence the Panel concludes that the domain name is, for the purposes of the Policy, confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks.
The Complainant has shown that it has the appropriate rights in a trademark, and that the domain name is confusingly similar to this mark. ...
2007-08-23 - Case Details
Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the owner of countless registered trademarks all over the world, which contain the term “xenical”. ...Stellar Artist Mgmt., NAF Claim No 95650 (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith use and registration by using domain names that were identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to redirect users to a website that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant).
...
2013-01-24 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold inquiry: a threshold investigation into whether a
complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the first element of the Policy has been established.
...
2024-08-09 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the BCBG MAX AZRIA
trademark which it contains in its entirety with the addition of the letter “s”. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under the first element, the Complainant must establish that the disputed domain name is identical with, or
confusingly similar to, the Complainant’s trademark rights.
...
2022-12-29 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first requirement under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark in which it has rights.
...D2015-0067 (where the addition of the word "games" that described the complainant's business was used along with the trademark in the domain name in question, and it was found to render the domain name in question confusingly similar to the mark).
Accordingly, the element "voip" in the disputed domain name is found to be connected with the business of the Complainant, and the combination "hikevoip" in the second level of the disputed domain name in the present case is found to be confusingly similar to the Complainant's HIKE mark. ...
2016-05-03 - Case Details
Respondent has not contested the assertions by Complaint that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the MASSACHUSETTS FINANCIAL SERVICES Mark.
As numerous courts and prior UDRP panels have recognized, the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety may be sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to complainant’s registered mark. ...Therefore, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the MASSACHUSETTS FINANCIAL SERVICES Mark pursuant to the Policy Paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2007-09-05 - Case Details
The Panel will deal with each of these requirements in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element, Complainant must first establish that there is a trademark or service mark in which it has rights. ...D2012-1395, where the domain name was held to be confusingly similar to the KAREN MILLEN trademark; Belstaff S.R.L. v. Jason Lau, Sharing,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0783, where the domain name was held to be confusingly similar to the BELSTAFF trademark; Lime Wire LLC v. ...
2013-11-26 - Case Details
These elements are discussed below.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
As an initial matter, the Complainant must demonstrate trademark rights in the CLARINS Mark. ...Because the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name constitutes typosquatting, the domain at issue is, by definition, confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CLARINS Mark. It has been held that typosquatting creates virtually identical and/or confusingly similar marks to a complainant’s trademark. ...
2014-05-08 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant’s contentions are as follows.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its NATIONAL GRID and NATIONALGRID trademarks. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the trade marks.
...
2013-07-26 - Case Details
The Panel therefore finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark.
Furthermore, in making an enquiry as to whether a trade mark is identical or confusingly similar to a domain name, the domain extension, in this case ".com" should generally be disregarded (see Rohde & Schwarz GmbH & Co. ...The Panel accordingly finds that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the INTIMISSIMI trade mark in which the Complainant has rights, and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2014-12-03 - Case Details
Taking all these circumstances into account, this Panel decides that the proceedings will be in English.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To satisfy paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant must show that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to trademarks in which Complainant has rights. ...The disputed domain names are all misspellings of the FALABELLA trademark and thus they are confusingly similar to the trademark of Complainant.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the FALABELLA trademarks and that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks. ...
2015-06-30 - Case Details
The Complainant states that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, as it incorporates the Mark entirely and merely adds the term “careers.” ...D2000-0664 (finding to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s PRICE CLUB mark).
The Panel finds that the Domain Name composed of the DIRECTV mark and the generic term “careers” is confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2015-06-18 - Case Details
D2016-0956 (finding
to be confusingly similar to the BHP BILLITON trademark).
As a result, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proved that the disputed domain name is confusingly
similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights per Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
...D2017-1147 (“Sending fraudulent emails from a
confusingly similar domain name as the Complainant’s domain name is sufficient evidence of bad faith.”).
...
2025-08-22 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain name is identical
or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s VALENTINO
mark. The Respondent’s incorporation of the Complainant’s mark in full in the disputed domain name is
sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks. ...
2022-09-22 - Case Details
However, the Panel believes
that the disputed domain name should be considered confusingly similar to the mark, since the MODERNA
trademark remains recognizable despite the additional terms. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-11-03 - Case Details