Accordingly, the Panel accepts that
the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of standing under the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-08-04 - Case Details
Contentions of the Complainant regarding the disputed domain name being identical or confusingly similar to
the trademark or service mark of the Complainant:
- The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trade
name and mark INFOSYS. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-05-25 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is identical
to the ЛЕГО trademark and confusingly similar to the LEGO trademark.
The Complainant has not found any registered trademarks or trade names corresponding to the disputed
domain name owned by the Respondent. ...The Panel decides that the language of this administrative proceeding will be English.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the disputed domain name
is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2022-12-09 - Case Details
Complainant
5.1 The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
well-known BIOMERIEUX trademark considering that the Disputed Domain Name wholly reproduces the
trademark in its entirety. ...case=D2021-1381
page 4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.3 This Panel finds and accepts that the Complainant is a well-known bio-technology company active in the
field of diagnostic solutions. ...
2023-01-16 - Case Details
Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s trade mark.
Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant’s IQ and HNB marks were registered before the registration of the disputed domain name. ...
2023-01-12 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ACCOR trademark.
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 ACCOR mark.
...
2022-01-17 - Case Details
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 MCQUEEN and ALEXANDER MCQUEEN marks.
...Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to
the Complainant’s mark.
Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2023-07-17 - Case Details
The Respondent is associated with thousands of domain names, some of which are
identical or confusingly similar to third parties’ registered trademarks or famous personalities, which
corroborates a pattern of bad faith conduct. ...The Complainant has further alleged that the Respondent is associated with thousands of other domain
names, some of which are identical or confusingly similar to third parties’ registered trademarks or famous
personalities. In this respect, the Panel considers that, in this particular case, the circumstances show, in a
balance of probabilities, that there has been a target to the Complainant and/or its (unregistered at the time)
trademarks. ...
2023-02-23 - Case Details
Complainants
The disputed domain name is identical to the Second Complainant’s unregistered mark VN LABS and its
page 3
corporate name VN Labs Limited, and confusingly similar to its domain name . The
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant claims unregistered trademark rights in a VN LABS mark. The Panel recalls that, in order
to establish unregistered trademark rights for the purposes of the UDRP, the Complainant must show that its
alleged mark has become a distinctive identifier that consumers associate with its goods and/or services.
...
2023-04-18 - Case Details
Having considered the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules, the
Supplemental Rules, and applicable principles of law, the Panel’s findings on each of the above-cited
elements are as follows.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires Complainant show that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly
similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SIGNIFY
HEALTH Mark in which Complainant has valid trademark rights. ...
2023-10-18 - Case Details
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 5
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Discussion and Findings
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-10-17 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainants have established that the disputed domain name is
confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trademark and the requirement under the first limb of the Policy is
satisfied.
...The late filed Response and the identity of the Respondents
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
6. Decision...
2023-10-17 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated rights through registration and use on the PFIZER mark.
...D2017-0275).
The Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the PFIZER trademark of Complainant.
Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2023-07-05 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Section 1.2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states that registration of a trademark is prima facie evidence of
Complainant having enforceable rights in the LINKEDIN Mark.
...Section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 says that inclusion of the entire trademark in a domain name will be
considered confusingly similar. Section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 instructs that the addition of other
terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of
confusing similarity. ...
2023-07-13 - Case Details
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the complainant must prove 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
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?...Accordingly, the Panel finds that disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the MICHELIN Mark in
which the Complainant has rights. Therefore, the Complainant has established paragraph 4(a)(i) of the
Policy.
...
2023-07-13 - Case Details
Complainant
In summary, the Complainant contends as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The disputed domain name is virtually identical to the Complainant’s BCBS mark, coupled with the letters
“de”. ...In these circumstances, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark
in which the Complainant has rights and therefore that the Complainant has carried its burden in respect of
paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2023-07-10 - Case Details
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its AIRBUS trademark,
because it is a combination of this trademark and the dictionary word “transport”, which is related to its
business. ...Thank you”
page 4
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2023-06-23 - Case Details
See section 4.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions,
Third Edition (“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.
...As numerous UDRP panels have held, incorporating a trademark in its entirety is
sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark (see PepsiCo,
Inc. v. PEPSI, SRL (a/k/a P.E.P.S.I.) and EMS COMPUTER INDUSTRY (a/k/a EMS), WIPO Case No.
...
2023-11-16 - Case Details
Complainant
1) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s UBREAKIFIX trade
mark in which the Complainant has rights. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s
UBREAKIFIX mark in its entirety with the omission of the letter “a” which is insufficient to differentiate
the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s UBREAKIFIX trade mark. ...As is stated in section 1.9 of
the WIPO Overview 3.0, “[a] domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of
a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first
element”.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name, which is a typosquatted domain name revolving around the
distinctive and well-established UBREAKIFIX trade mark and which contains merely an omission of the letter
“a”, is confusingly similar to the UBREAKIFIX trade mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...
2023-08-30 - Case Details
Notably, Complainant contends that (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s
trademarks; (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name; and (iii) Respondent
registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith.
...In Knot We Trust LTD, WIPO Case No. D2006-0340.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2023-08-28 - Case Details