The Complainant has also the burden of providing evidence of all of these requirements.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has no registered trademark rights in Italy, so the first issue is to determine whether or not he has unregistered trademark rights or their equivalent for the purpose of the UDRP.
...The other aspect of Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i) that the Complainant must establish is that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to his trademark. The three disputed domain names contain the Complainant's trademark in its entirety. ...
2017-05-02 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the SHUTTERSTOCK Marks in light of their registration and use by the Complainant.
The Panel agrees with the Complainant that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SHUTTERSTOCK Marks. The Panel also agrees with the Complainant that the letter “s” has no distinguishing attributes that are identified with the Respondent. ...
2017-10-24 - Case Details
Below, the case with respect to the Domain Name, registered in the name of Lucas
Henrique Gomes (the Respondent 2), will be discussed, as this Domain Name is connected to an active
website, which contains all of the screens for which evidence was submitted by the Complainant.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has shown that it has registered rights in the Trade Marks. The
Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trade Marks as it incorporates the CANVA word mark in its
entirety. ...Therefore, the
Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trade Marks in which
the Complainant has rights.
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, the second element a complainant has to prove is that a respondent
lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. ...
2023-12-19 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainants state that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to their CARS24 trademark, because the trademark is incorporated in the disputed domain name in its entirety.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainants have jointly filed the Complaint and provide evidence that the First Complainant is the owner of the CARS24 trademark, registered in India. ...
2021-12-17 - Case Details
The Panel has reviewed the Parties’ submissions and will now proceed to
Decision.
6.2. Substantive issues
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
The Respondents deny that the domain name in dispute is identical or confusingly similar to any trademark or service mark in which the Complainant allegedly has rights.
The Complainant has not registered trademarks related to the Internet activity carried out by the Respondents. ...The difficulty in this case is that the Complaint is based on claimed rights in the use of very descriptive and generic trade marks and device registrations while on the evidence, the Respondents are clearly engaged in a pattern of registering Internet domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to well known trade marks.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it is the owner of the trademark registrations mentioned in paragraph 4 above, each of which are device marks. ...
2007-01-12 - Case Details
For these reasons, the Panel did not allow a supplemental filing from the Complainant.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Because of the majority Panel's findings in relation to the second element (below), it is not strictly necessary for the Panel to consider this element. ...The other is that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that mark.
The disputed domain name is plainly identical to the mark in which the Complainant claims rights. ...
2009-02-19 - Case Details
Gilson, et al, Trademark Protection and Practice (© 1996, Matthew Bender & Co., Inc.) states:
"When one trademark is said to be 'confusingly similar to another', it is so similar to the other that, when it is used on products the purchasing public is likely to be confused. The term [confusingly similar] is simply another way to express the fact that confusion is likely."
In assessing whether sufficient similarity exists between two marks, Gilson, at § 5.02[1], states: "If a word trademark sounds similar to the plaintiff's mark courts often find likelihood of confusion, especially if the associated product is typically ordered orally. ...
2001-03-06 - Case Details
Each of the aforesaid three elements must be proved by a complainant to warrant relief.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has provided evidence of rights in the trademark CONCIERGE AUCTIONS, including by registration at the USPTO and use in commerce. ...Appel, who is dissatisfied with Complainant and its services.4
Respondent is using the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark, to post information regarding Complainant and its business practices. ...
2020-08-27 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy Complainants must establish rights in a trademark and secondly prove that the domain name in dispute is confusingly similar to the trademarks in which Complainants have rights.
...Numerous UDRP panels have held that a domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark when the domain name incorporates the mark in its entirety. See, e.g., Am. ...
2007-11-26 - Case Details
iii) The Complainant has not consented to the Respondent's use of a domain name which is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark.
(iv) The Respondent does not hold any relevant trademark or service mark.
...For the foregoing reasons, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark. In those circumstances, it is not necessary for the Panel to determine if the Complainant enjoys unregistered trademark rights in a BAHIA PRINCIPE word mark.
...
2009-07-22 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the SONY trademark. The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is
confusingly similar to this trademark. Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that domain names are
identical or confusingly similar to a trademark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes
the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name”
(Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2023-06-02 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(i) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CHEESECAKE FACTORY Marks.
...Hence, any use to which the Respondent were to put the mark “CHEESECAKE
FACTORY” or one confusingly similar thereto, in connection with the goods
and services provided by the Complainant or those similar thereto would directly
violate the exclusive trademark rights now residing in the Complainant. ...
2005-09-22 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its state-registered (and common-law) WFLI mark, and that none of the Respondents have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
...Nevertheless, Parker-Chillemi's Response goes on to deny that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights, admits that Parker-Chillemi has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, but denies that the Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith. ...
2008-10-09 - Case Details
The Panel does not consider it necessary to consider these submissions for the purposes of this Decision and having reviewed their contents is not convinced that if even if they are taken into account, they would make any difference to the outcome of this case.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.5 The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...That juxtaposition does not change the overall impression imparted by the Domain Name sufficiently to prevent the Domain Name from being confusingly similar to these trade marks.
6.6 The Respondent does not deny the similarity between the Complainant's marks and the Domain Name. ...
2008-10-29 - Case Details
Complainant
5.1 The Complaint refers in extensive submissions to a very large number of cases under the Policy to support the contention that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights. It is claimed that (a) the Domain Name “wholly incorporates [the] Complainant's EHOTEL mark” and that therefore the Domain Name is identical to its trade mark and that (b) the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's EHOTEL SERVICE mark in that it “fully incorporates the distinctive part EHOTEL”.
5.2 On the questions of rights and legitimate interests it maintains that “the word EHOTEL is obviously connected with [the] Complainant's mark EHOTEL and is not a word a trader or private person would legitimately choose unless seeking to create an impression of an association with [the] Complainant”. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.3 The Complainant possesses both German and Community trade marks that comprise the terms “eHotel Services” and “eHotel” respectively. ...
2009-08-20 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant owns rights; the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In the present case, the Complainant seeks to rely upon rights in an unregistered trademark consisting of the term “xvideos”. ...
2012-08-27 - Case Details
A complainant must prove each of these three elements.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under the UDRP, the test for confusing similarity involves a comparison between the trademark and the domain name to determine likelihood of Internet user confusion. To satisfy the test, the trademark to which the domain name is said to be confusingly similar would generally need to be recognisable as such within the domain name. Whilst the requirement of confusing similarity is generally regarded as a “low threshold” test (involving a simple comparison of the mark relied upon with the domain name in issue), the precursor to such a comparison is that a complainant does actually have rights in the mark to which the domain name is said to be confusingly similar or identical.
...
2013-11-04 - Case Details
Therefore, the Panel will now proceed to a decision on the merits of the case.
6.2. Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights over the trademark KELLER based on the
trademark registrations cited under section 4 above and the related trademark certificates submitted as
Annexes 4A and 4B to the Complaint.
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the disputed domain names are confusingly
similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has established rights according to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the
Policy.
...
2023-05-05 - Case Details
The Complainant asserts that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its IRN-BRU trade marks, as the ".com" generic Top-Level domain ("gTLD") can be disregarded for the purposes of comparison of a domain name to a mark. ...The Panel is also required under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy to examine whether the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark. The Domain Name incorporates the Complainant's IRN-BRU trade mark in its entirety. ...
2016-09-13 - Case Details