Respondent
Respondent did not reply to 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...
2025-04-07 - Case Details
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 4
6b. Substantive Matters
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...
2025-07-07 - Case Details
It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on
Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).
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...
2024-06-13 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the burden of proving that all three elements are present lies with the Complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There is no doubt that disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant´s trademark VIRKON, which is registered in many countries around the world, including the Russian Federation on September 20, 1993, registration No. 134614, in class 05 of the international classification. ...For all the above cited reasons, the Panel concludes that disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, and therefore the condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is fulfilled.
...
2010-11-10 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trade mark BLACK & DECKER, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...On the basis of the evidence introduced by the Complainant, the Panel concludes as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has trade mark rights in BLACK & DECKER by virtue of use and registration. ...
2020-08-10 - Case Details
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 merely serving as a gateway requirement under the Policy. ...Accordingly, the Panel holds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark on which the Complaint is based.
The Complainant has passed the first threshold of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2019-09-19 - Case Details
Furthermore, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the TOPSHOP Mark
because it incorporates that Mark in its entirety and adds the term “metaverse”, which does not prevent a
finding of confusingly similarity. ...case=D2021-4023
page 4
It is also well settled that adding the gTLD, here “.com”, is not significant in determining whether a domain
name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. See CBS Broadcasting Inc. v. Worldwide Webs, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0834.
...
2022-09-07 - Case Details
Substantive Requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In comparing the Mark with the disputed domain name , it is evident that the
latter consists of the Mark, followed by the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.email”.
...Finally, prior UDRP panels have held that in certain circumstances, registrants of domain names have an
affirmative duty to abstain from registering and using a domain name which is either identical or confusingly
similar to a prior trademark held by others and that contravening that duty may constitute bad faith. ...
2022-05-24 - Case Details
This dispute resolution procedure is accepted by the domain name
registrant as a condition of registration.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established trademarks rights for the purposes of the UDRP. Noting that due to the
global nature of the Internet and Domain Name System, the jurisdiction where the trademark is valid is not
considered relevant to the Panel assessment under the first element. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-06-01 - Case Details
Let us consider the applicability, in detail, of what is stated in paragraph 4 (a) of the Policy.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name in question is composed exactly of two marks that are mark registrations of the Complainant, which are, "BMW" and "X5".
...The domain name in dispute and registered by the Respondent is confusingly similar to the mark registrations of the Complainant, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name and the Respondent’s domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2002-12-04 - Case Details
The Complainants state that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the First Complainant’s
ICERIVER trademark, because it incorporates it in its entirety, and the “.eu” country code Top-Level Domain
(“ccTLD”) is irrelevant for the confusing similarity analysis.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar to a name in respect of which a right or rights are recognized or
established by national law of a Member State and/or European Union law
Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(i) of the ADR Rules requires that the disputed domain name be “identical or
confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by national law of a
member State and/or European Union law”. ...
2026-03-10 - Case Details
It follows that the Panel is satisfied
that the Domain Name is at least confusingly similar with the Complainant’s mark and that the Complainant
has established the first element of the Policy.
...Lyuben Stoev
Case No. D2025-3902
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking...
2026-01-02 - 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
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-06-03 - Case Details
See section 4.2 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under the first element, the Complainant must establish that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly
similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...Substantive Matters – Three Elements
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-07-17 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(i) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is both confusingly similar and identical to the Complainant’s GREAT WOLF Marks.
...In that regard and apart from judging this proceeding through mere default of the Respondent, the Panel makes the following specific findings.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that confusion is likely to arise as a result of the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name.
...
2006-02-24 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant claims state common-law and statutory rights in MONTROSE JET CENTER as a mark and contends that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to that mark. The Complainant argues that the Respondent has never used a name equivalent to the Domain Names in its business and has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. ...The Complainant infers bad-faith registration and use of the Domain Names because they are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark and are used to redirect Internet users to a website about the Respondent’s directly competing business (see Policy, Paragraph 4(b)(iv)). ...
2006-06-30 - Case Details
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking is defined in paragraph 1 of the Rules as meaning “using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain name holder of a domain name.”
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Respondent does not dispute that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's Swiss trade mark registration and the Panel so finds.
...If someone else has already registered a domain name identical or confusingly similar to the proposed new mark, that domain name will be unavailable to the business unless it negotiates a transfer. ...
2009-09-24 - Case Details
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the MERCADONA trademark because it reproduces this trademark by only adding “-online”, which is a generic word on the Internet, and the disputed domain name is identical to the DELIPLUS trademark.
...The Panel will regard all their statements as part of the Respondent’s contentions, and will refer to all of them as the Respondent.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided evidence that it is the owner of the MERCADONA and the DELIPLUS trademarks. ...
2021-12-13 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s trademark LENSKART in its entirety. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element of the Policy functions essentially as a standing element in which the Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark which is identical or confusingly similar to the disputed domain name when compared to it, typically on a straightforward side-by-side basis. ...
2021-06-29 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In cases 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 identical or confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of the Policy. ...Accordingly, this Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark, and the first element of the Policy under paragraph 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
...
2020-01-20 - Case Details