Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s TMALL trademarks, as it incorporates the TMALL mark in its entirety. ...However, references to the Respondent shall include any actions by the beneficial holder regarding the Domain Name.
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element of a UDRP complaint “functions primarily as a standing requirement” and entails “a straightforward comparison between the complainant’s trademark and the domain name”. ...
2021-06-28 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP requires Complainant to make out all three of the following:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...In comparing Complainant’s LINKEDIN mark with the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. The disputed domain name consists of an obvious misspelling of Complainant’s mark. ...
2021-07-06 - Case Details
Based on the evidence and arguments submitted, the Panel’s findings are as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has shown that it has valid rights in the mark UNILEVER, based on its intensive use and registration of the same as trademarks in a large number of jurisdictions.
Moreover, as to whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark, the disputed domain name consists of only the Complainant’s registered trademark for UNILEVER, followed by the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), “.shop”. ...
2021-11-02 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel permits this Complaint to proceed in the form in which it was filed.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Once the gTLD “.com” is ignored (which is appropriate in this case), each disputed domain name consists of the whole of the Complainant’s registered word trademark CARVANA, followed by either “markt” or “markts”, which are the German words for “market” and “markets”, respectively. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondents are not licensees of the Complainant, are not otherwise affiliated with the Complainant, and have not been authorized by the Complainant to use its CARVANA word trademark. ...
2021-11-01 - Case Details
and which bank information (IBAN and etc)?”
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Once the gTLD “.com” is ignored (which is appropriate in this case), the disputed domain name consists of the whole of the Complainant’s registered word trademark INSTA followed by a hyphen and the word “shark”. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is not a licensee of, or otherwise affiliated with, the Complainant, and has not been authorized by the Complainant to use its INSTA word trademark. ...
2021-08-27 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy sets forth the following three requirements, which have to be met for this Panel to order the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(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.
...In accordance with paragraph 14(a) of the Rules, if the Respondent does not submit a Response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute based upon the Complaint.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established its rights in the registered PANAVISION trademark.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name only differs by a hyphen to the Complainant’s trademark and is therefore confusingly similar to it. ...
2021-08-26 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence provided, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the IQOS mark.
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant has satisfied the first element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2021-09-08 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the trademark QATARENERGY through registration and
use demonstrated in the record. The Panel also concludes that the Domain Names are confusingly similar
to that mark. The QATARENERGY mark is clearly recognizable within the Domain Names, and the
additional words “vendor” and “contract” do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the mark
and the Domain Names.
...
2022-11-01 - Case Details
According to the Complainant, the disputed domain names are visually, phonetically and conceptually
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks in which it has established rights, only differing to the
Complainant’s trademarks by one letter, characterizing an obvious and intentional misspelling of the
Complainant’s trademarks and a prime example of deliberate and opportunistic typo-squatting.
...The Complainant must prove in this administrative proceeding that each of the aforesaid three elements is
present so as to have the disputed domain names transferred to it, according to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
page 4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights in the HOSTELWORLD and HOSTELWORLD.COM trademarks
duly registered in several countries around the world (Annex 3 to the Complaint).
...
2022-11-09 - Case Details
Complainant
According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its META registered
trademark as it captures the entirety of its trademark with the mere adjunction of the term “coin”.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark META in its entirety with no alteration,
and combines this trademark with the term “coin”.
...
2023-02-10 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name incorporates Complainants’ trademark UNIPOL in its entirety. This is sufficient to establish confusing similarity (Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...D2002-0122).
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the UNIPOL mark of Complainants.
Complainants have established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2021-12-29 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its LIVERPOOL FC trademark (the “Mark”), that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b) of the Policy.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has uncontested rights in the Mark, both by virtue of its trademark registrations and as a result of the goodwill and reputation acquired through its use of the Mark over very many years. ...
2022-01-04 - 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...
2025-12-03 - 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...
2025-12-17 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement.
...Respondents
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-12-01 - 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...
2025-12-23 - Case Details
For the reasons set forth below, a majority of the Panel concludes that this Complaint should be denied.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant clearly holds rights in the trademark SANOFI. The Domain Name is identical to the distinctive mark, except for the omission of the final letter "i". The Panel concludes that this difference is relatively insignificant in this instance. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark.
Accordingly, the Panel concludes that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2014-09-25 - Case Details
(1) The Complainants state that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to their trademark.
Since the 50s, RECORDATI has become a well-known trademark in the field of pharmaceutical industry.
...In the following, the Panel will discuss in consecutive order if each of these requirements are met here.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The test for identity or confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy demands a direct comparison between the Complainants' mark and the textual string of the disputed domain name which is claimed to affect the Complainants.
...
2014-07-08 - Case Details
Considering these conditions, the Panel rules as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has based its Complaint on a Benelux trademark as well as a CTM and has submitted copies of the registrations demonstrating that Complainant is the holder of the Trademark. ...It is settled case law under the Regulations that a domain name that wholly incorporates a complainant’s registered mark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for the purpose of the Regulations.1
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Trademark within the meaning of article 2.1(a) of the Regulations. Therefore the first requirement is met.
...
2015-04-08 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant had registered rights in the trademark SWISS RE as at the Relevant Date by way of its United States and international registered trademarks specified above. ...The Panel accordingly finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights and finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied in favour of the Complainant.
...
2014-12-16 - Case Details