Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that
(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 with respect to 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
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademarks LOKAI since it entirely contains this trademark and only prefix the dictionary term “shop”.
...
2020-08-14 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its registered CNO and CNO FINANCIAL GROUP trademarks, incorporating the characters “cno” and adding “fg”, which could be read as the abbreviation for “financial group”. ...Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to divest a respondent of a domain name, a complainant must demonstrate each of the following:
(i) the 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 domain name; and
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2020-08-21 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Names incorporate Complainant’s trademark MILLIMAN in its entirety with the mere replacement of the last vowel “a” with an “e”. ...D2002-0122).
The Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the MILLIMAN mark of Complainant.
Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2020-09-21 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The Respondent is using a Domain Name that is
confusingly similar to the GLO Mark to sell products, be they genuine or otherwise, in competition with the
Complainant and without the Complainant’s approval.
...
2026-04-23 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainants contend that (i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to
the first Complainant’s trademark; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed
Domain Name; and (iii) the Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. ...Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the
language of the proceeding shall be English.
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2026-03-04 - 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...
2026-06-08 - 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...
2026-06-04 - 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...
2026-03-25 - 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. ...Complainant
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-03-24 - 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 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...
2026-02-12 - Case Details
See
WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions, (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.3.
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...
2026-04-20 - 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 or Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-04-17 - 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...
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