Accordingly, while the Panel has considered the parties’ unsolicited submissions, it accords them no
dispositive weight in its Decision.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to demonstrate that the disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-02-23 - 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...
2026-02-11 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following:
i. the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a 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.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-01-26 - 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...
2026-01-30 - Case Details
case=D2019-2784
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the f irst element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The Panel f inds that the entirety of the Complainant’s mark is reproduced and immediately recognizable
within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
...
2026-01-29 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the
Trade Mark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain
name, and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used 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. ...
2026-01-14 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel f inds that Complainant has rights in the mark LATHAM & WATKINS through registration and use
demonstrated in the record. ...The Panel also concludes that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the LW mark. The Domain Name
entirely incorporates the mark LW and adds a hyphen and the word “group”. ...
2026-01-08 - 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...
2026-02-16 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Domain Name:
(i) the 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 Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated rights through registration and use on the FOX mark.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar with the FOX trademark of Complainant.
...
2020-07-31 - 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 (or threshold) requirement. ...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.
...
2020-06-29 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name incorporates Complainant’s trademark EFG 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 EFG mark of Complainant.
Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2020-05-20 - Case Details
The addition of these generic words and hyphens do not serve to distinguish the domain names from the Complainant’s DROPBOX marks and the Panel finds that the domain names are confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights for the purpose of the Policy.”); see also section 1.8 of WIPO Overview 3.0).
...For the foregoing reasons the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark FILM4 in which the Complainant has exclusive rights.
B. ...
2020-05-18 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel has decided not to redact the “organization name” of the Respondent.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Once the gTLD “.com” is ignored (which is appropriate in this case), the disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s registered word trademark ACCENTURE, followed by the word “Egypt”. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
C. 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 ACCENTURE trademark. ...
2020-08-11 - Case Details
Complainant
In summary, the Complainant contends as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...Respondent
In summary, the Respondent contends as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant has issued trademark opposition proceedings in respect of the Respondent’s trademark application, which proceedings will be contested. ...
2022-03-07 - Case Details
Complainant
Key contentions of the Complaint may be summarized as follows:
The Complainant sent a cease and desist letter and various communications to the Respondent, which were never replied.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The disputed domain name incorporates the INSTAGRAM mark in its entirety with the addition of the dictionary term “how”, being the Complainant’s trademark clearly recognizable.
...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.
...
2021-01-25 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, Complainant carries the burden of proving:
(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Further, according to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to submit a Response as it considers appropriate.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s BLUEHOST trademark, and that Complainant, thus, has standing to file this UDRP Complaint.
...
2021-01-22 - Case Details
Therefore, says the Complainant, the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to one or more of the trade marks in which the Complainant has rights within the meaning of 4(a)(i) of the UDRP.
...The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s FALL GUYS mark and is therefore confusingly similar to it. The fact that the disputed domain name also incorporates the dictionary word “mobile” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. ...
2020-11-30 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
The Complainant must prove that the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been met:
(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 of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...DMX2012-0013; and Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. null John Zuccarini, Country Walk,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0487).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has submitted evidence showing that it owns registrations for the SHUTTERSTOCK mark in various jurisdictions and classes, to cover services related to the licensing of digital data and the publishing of images since 2007.
...
2021-01-20 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s XHAMSTER trade mark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name comprises the Complainant’s registered trade mark, XHAMSTER, and the “.org” generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) identifier.
...
2021-01-18 - Case Details
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its LEGO trademark submitting that the disputed domain name consists solely of the Complainant’s LEGO mark. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has adduced clear, convincing and uncontested evidence of its rights in the LEGO trademark acquired by its ownership of the trademark registrations described above and its extensive use of the mark in its sale of products and provision of services including on its website.
...
2021-01-14 - Case Details