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...
2026-04-17 - Case Details
The registration of a domain name that is identical or
confusingly similar to a well-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can, in itself, give rise to a presumption
of bad faith. ...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. ...
2026-04-16 - Case Details
WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8.
Accordingly, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7.
The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-04-14 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The unregistered mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name and remains recognizable, even
without the final part “inc.”. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the
purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7.
The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.
...
2026-04-14 - Case Details
WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.10.
Accordingly, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the registered trademarks for the purposes
of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, 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...
2026-03-18 - Case Details
The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed
domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section
1.7.
Although the addition of other terms like the prefix “am” may bear on assessment of the second and third
elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between
the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes 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
7. Decision...
2026-03-17 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s CASETRACK mark; 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.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant relies on unregistered or common law rights in its CASETRACK mark. ...
2026-03-16 - Case Details
Substantive Issues
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that a complainant must prove each of the following three elements to
obtain an order for the disputed domain name to be transferred:
(i) the disputed domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark
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.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2026-04-10 - 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...
2026-05-07 - Case Details
Further, according to paragraph 14(b) of the .GE Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences from
Respondent's failure to submit a Response as it considers appropriate.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
First, 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 or Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-05-05 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends the following:
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the PLANTS VS. ZOMBIES trade mark
in which the Complainant has rights.
The PLANTS VS. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-05-04 - 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...
2026-05-04 - 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 established rights over the IQOS trademark.
The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark with the addition of the term “label” does not prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar with the IQOS trademark. ...For the reasons above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a non-exclusive list of circumstances that may indicate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...
2019-07-29 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel finds it proper to accept English as the language of the proceeding.
6.3 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names and are confusingly similar to the CHECK INTO CASH trade mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...This finding is consistent with what is reflected in section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“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. This stems from the fact that the domain name contains sufficiently recognizable aspects of the relevant mark. ...
2019-07-23 - 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 for it merely serves as a standing requirement under the Policy. ...Under these circumstances, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is virtually identical or at the very least confusingly similar to the INGENICO mark on which the Complaint is based.
The Complainant has therefore satisfied its burden of proof for this element of the Policy.
...
2019-07-18 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its prior SANDVIK Trade Marks and domain names. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...Given that the Complainant’s SANDIVK trade mark is recognisable within the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that it is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark.
Therefore, the Complainant has satisfied the first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2019-05-27 - Case Details
Complainant
The following is a summary of the main allegations of the Complainant.
The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant is the proprietor of the following United Kingdom trademarks for ARNOLD CLARK – Reg. ...A complainant must prove each of these three elements to succeed.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant clearly has rights in the ARNOLD CLARK mark by virtue of its trademark registrations.
...
2019-07-02 - Case Details
Namely, the Complainant must prove that:
(i) the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (paragraph 4(a)(i)); and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names (paragraph 4(a)(ii)); and
(iii) the Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith (paragraph 4(a)(iii)).
6.3 However, under paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, where a party does not comply with any provision of the Rules, the Panel shall “draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate”.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.4 In order to satisfy this first element of the Policy it is usually sufficient for a complainant to show that the relevant mark is “recognizable with the disputed domain name”; as to which see section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).
6.5 The Panel is satisfied that:
(a) The Complainant’s VERIZON registered trade mark is recognisable in the Domain Names , , and .
...
2020-05-22 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the Domain Names are all “virtually identical and confusingly similar” to its registered MONTAGE marks, which the Respondent is using without permission or other evident rights or legitimate interests. ...Under paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, “[a] Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”.
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”. ...
2020-05-21 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name incorporates Complainant’s trademark THE ORDINARY almost in its entirety, excluding only the article “the”. ...D2002-0122).
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to THE ORDINARY mark of Complainant.
Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2020-10-30 - Case Details