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
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 rights in the mark OSRAM, based on its intensive use and registration of the same as a trademark in a large number of jurisdictions.
Moreover, as to whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name only consists of the Complainant’s registered trademark OSRAM. ...
2020-10-30 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name incorporates Complainant’s trademark WIKIPEDIA 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 WIKIPEDIA mark of Complainant.
Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2020-10-02 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is nearly identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademarks in the Unites States of America, Japan and worldwide, in which the Complainant has exclusive rights and has used for many years in connection with the promotion and sale of computer and video game programs and related goods and services.
...In view of the circumstances of this case, and in accordance with paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, the Panel decides that English be the language of the proceeding.
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel must determine whether (a) the Complainant has a trademark or service mark; and (b) whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark or service mark.
...
2020-05-13 - 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 that it owns registered trademarks TAYU and 1865 in Chile and various other countries prior to the registration of the disputed domain name on November 12, 2019.
...The Panel concurs with the opinion of several prior UDRP panels that if a disputed domain name is composed of more than one distinct trademark, which are both owned by the same complainant, the domain name may be considered confusingly similar to all of the marks individually. (See, e.g., Société des Produits Nestlé SA v. Stuart Cook,
WIPO Case No. ...
2020-05-11 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name incorporates Complainant’s trademark LINE 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 LINE mark of Complainant.
Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2020-05-07 - Case Details
The Panel has authority to decide the dispute examining the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, taking into consideration all of the relevant evidence, annexed material and allegations, and performing some limited independent research under the general powers of the Panel articulated, inter alia, in paragraph 10 of the Rules.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered identical or confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of the Policy. ...Accordingly, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark, and the first element of the Policy under paragraph 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
...
2020-06-10 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends as follows:
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s prior rights as it reproduces letter-by-letter its HERMÈS trademarks, domain names and company name, with the addition of a descriptive and generic term related to its leather business. ...Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
By submitting printouts taken from official trademark databases, Complainant has satisfied the Panel that it has rights in the HERMÈS trademark. ...
2020-04-28 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant makes in essence the following arguments:
The Complainant first claims that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s rights in its NORTHERN TRUST and NORTHERN TRUST PRIVATE PASSPORT trademarks.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has rights to a trademark or service mark as reflected in the Trademark.
...
2020-04-27 - Case Details