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...
2025-05-21 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s trademark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed
domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...The Panel finds that all three of these elements have been met in this case.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on
Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. ...
2025-06-12 - 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...
2025-06-11 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed Complainant must satisfy the Panel that:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which
Complainant has rights;
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
page 3
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Ownership of a trademark registration is generally sufficient evidence that a complainant has the requisite
rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...
2025-06-06 - 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...
2025-07-10 - Case Details
page 3
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...
2025-06-26 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Discussion and Findings
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-06-26 - Case Details
page 3
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...
2025-06-25 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated it owns registered trademark rights in the FENWICK mark. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-05-30 - Case Details
page 3
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...
2025-05-26 - Case Details
Complainant
The complainant contends that the disputed domain name is nearly identical and confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s famous ACCENTURE trademark whereas the descriptive terms “consultancy” and the
geographically descriptive term UAE fail to negate confusing similarity.
...Can you please explain”.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2025-05-26 - 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...
2025-07-07 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed, the Complainant must establish each of the
following elements:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the 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.
page 3
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2025-07-04 - Case Details
page 3
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
First of all, Complainant has demonstrated rights through registration and use on the BPCE trademarks.
...Consequently, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the BPCE trademark of
Complainant since it incorporates said trademark entirely, albeit misspelled, and so the requirement
established in paragraph 4(a)(i) from Policy has been satisfied.
...
2023-10-10 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the trademark ONLYFANS through registration and use
demonstrated in the record. The Panel also concludes that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to that
mark. The Domain Name entirely incorporates the ONLYFANS mark and adds the words “guys with.” ...
2023-10-06 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its earlier trademarks, that
the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the disputed
domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the owner of the trademark AÉMA.
The disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark in its
entirety, adding thereto the phrase “gestion privée” (“private management”), commonly used in French
language in the field of banking, financial or insurance services.
...
2023-09-13 - Case Details
page 3
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds the Complainant’s rights in the trademark LEERDAMMER acquired through international
registration.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-09-05 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its
ZYN Trademarks. It underlines that it is the owner of several ZYN Trademarks across numerous
jurisdictions. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-12-03 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade
Mark; 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.
...Substantive Elements of the Policy
The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use and registration.
...
2023-05-15 - Case Details
The Complainant must prove in this administrative proceeding that each of the aforementioned three
elements is present in order to obtain the transfer of the disputed domain name.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights in the FERD trademark duly registered.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name reproduces the entirety of the Complainant’s mark, with the
addition of the term “holding”. ...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademark. The first element of the Policy has been established.
...
2023-05-31 - Case Details