- With respect to the elements described in paragraph 4(a)(i), the Complainant
makes no specific submissions with respect to the question of whether the domain
name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which it has rights,
assuming, perhaps, that this is unnecessary because of the identity between
the two. ...As a number of previous Panels have noted, the purpose of the UDRP
is to prevent the bad faith registration of domain names that are identical
or confusingly similar to trade marks. This is a limited purpose that does not
presently cover the protection of geographical names, however desirable this
may be: see further WIPO Case No. ...
2002-05-06 - Case Details
As to the reverse domain name hijacking, the Respondent notes that the Complainants changed their trading name in November 2001, some 17 months after Richard Lambert registered the domains.
5. Discussion and Findings
A. Domain Names Confusingly Similar to the Trademarks
There is no doubt that and are confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainants. ...Decision
In the light of the foregoing, the Panel decides that the domain names at issue are confusingly similar to Complainants’ trademarks, that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain names, and further, that the Respondent appears to have acted in bad faith in registering and using the disputed domain names. ...
2002-08-06 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) that the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and,
(ii) that the Respondent has no legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and,
(iii) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Application of Paragraph 4(a) to the Facts
I. Identical or Confusingly Similar to Trademark or Service Mark.
Complainant is required under Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy to prove that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights. ...
2002-09-23 - Case Details
The Panel did not find any circumstances sufficiently exceptional to request Supplemental Filings and declined to receive them.
Whether the Domain Name is Identical or Confusingly Similar to a Trademark
6.4.The Domain Name subject to this Complaint is . The inclusion of <.biz> or equivalent in a Domain Name is inevitable and of no consequence for the determination of identity or confusing similarity. ...Decision
The Decision of the Administrative Panel is that the disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark PEPSI in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed Domain Name; and that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed Domain Name in bad faith. ...
2002-08-06 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant asserts that it has rights in the trademark “ARAI” (and related ARAI-formative marks) and that the disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to its mark. Complainant asserts that its trademark is well known in the field of safety helmets.
...Each of the aforesaid three elements must be proved by a complainant to warrant relief.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has submitted evidence of registration of the trademark “ARAI” on the Principal Register of the USPTO. ...
2005-02-10 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that (1) the domain name "PLANETHEINEKEN.com" is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, in which the Complainant has rights; (2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; (3) the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Comparable cases, where in absence of any substantive response of the Respondent the Panel, based on the circumstances of the case, has concluded that the (not identical but) confusingly similar domain name was registered and used in bad faith are e.g.Guerlain S.A. v. HI Investments (case No. ...
2001-02-06 - Case Details
The domain name is identical, and therefore confusingly similar, to Complainant’s respective BANCO DO BRASIL mark. In addition, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has registered the domain name in bad faith. ...Decision
For all the above reasons the Panel has found that the domain name is identical, or at least confusingly similar, to the marks of the Complainant, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to the domain name, and that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2000-09-04 - Case Details
The contention of the Complainant that the name is identical or confusingly similar is not at all a relevant issue inasmuch all national dailies carry the same service/trade mark in advertisements from property dealers advertising properties for sale/rent in this area.
...dlf-city.com" by the Respondent is identical and confusingly similar to the trade/service name of the Complainant.
Legitimate interest:
The trade/service name DLF and DLF-City clearly belongs to the Complainant. ...
2000-12-12 - Case Details
The Respondent further denies that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademark, asserting that there are material differences between the Parties that preclude any likelihood of
consumer confusion. ...As noted by
previous panels, the Policy was adopted to deal as is with the problem of cybersquatting, the registration of
domain names consisting of, including, or confusingly similar to marks belonging to another for the purpose
of profiting from the goodwill associated with said marks. ...
2026-02-05 - Case Details
page 4
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...
2026-02-13 - Case Details
The Complainant concludes that the domain name in dispute is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Utrecht marks.
(b) Complainant’s contention that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...The Panel has taken note of the Respondent’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name, , is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Utrecht trademarks. ...
2007-11-06 - Case Details
The Respondent does not deny that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark.
The Respondent otherwise denies the Complainant's case against it. ...These issues are discussed in turn as follows.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There is no dispute between the parties that the Complainant's mark is relevantly identical to the disputed domain name, and the Panel so finds.
...
2009-01-06 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
5.A Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
5.A.1 The Complainant is the proprietor of, inter alia, the BASKIN-ROBBINS registered trademarks in the United States of America (“US”) and in the UAE set out in paragraph 4.A.2 above.
5.A.2 The domain name is identical to the Complainant's US trademark registration number 1,185,045 filed in 1980 and issued in 1982.
5.A.3 The domain name is also identical to that registered trademark but for omission of the hyphen.
5.A.4 The Complainant also relies upon its registration of the BASKIN ROBBINS marks in 35 countries worldwide and to the BASKIN ROBBINS name and mark being distinctive and well-known, both internationally and in the UAE.
...That is, the Policy expressly recognizes that other circumstances can be evidence relevant the requirements of paragraphs 6(a)(ii) and (iii) of the Policy.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.5 The Complainant has demonstrated that it has rights in the BASKIN ROBBINS trademarks, which are registered internationally (including in the United States of America since 1961 and in the UAE since 2003) and are well-known in relation to its ice cream products.
6.6. ...
2009-09-28 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Complainant has developed significant goodwill in the Name.
A. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights
The disputed domain name is identical to the Name which has been widely used by the Complainant as part of its business for over 10 years.
...thanks P.King-ford.”
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Name acquired through use. It is trite that, under the UDRP, rights in a trade mark can be established through use, absent any registrations in respect of the trade mark in question.
...
2009-10-22 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its EUROMASTER trademarks and in particular its' registered trade marks for EUROMASTER in the United Kingdom, as noted above.
...Therefore, the Respondent states that the assertion that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to “a generic mark that is not in use” is tenuous.
In view of the generic nature of the component words of the EUROMASTER mark and the fact that it is used in common by numerous traders, the Respondent disputes that the Complainant's mark is well-known or that it has better rights or interests to the Disputed Domain Name than other traders. ...
2010-03-18 - Case Details
ii) The Complainant contends that the Respondent's domain name is identical to and confusingly similar to the Complainant's famous CHIPPENDALES mark, because it incorporates the Complainant's entire famous CHIPPENDALES mark with the generic prefix “polish” added to it.
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's CHIPPENDALES mark, despite the addition of these generic terms.
...
2010-02-15 - Case Details
The fact that a trademark is incorporated in its entirety in a domain name is a solid indication, but does not ipso facto mean, that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark. The similarity of the trademark and the domain name depends on many factors, including “the relative distinctiveness of the trademark and the non-trademark elements of the domain name, and whether the non-trademark elements detract from or contradict the function of the trademark as an indication of origin” (see Pfizer Inc v. ...However, this is another case of the addition of a prefix and suffix to a registered trademark descriptive of the products available on the Respondent’s website which, as many UDRP decisions demonstrate, will almost invariably be insufficient to prevent the domain names being confusingly similar to the registered trademark.
The Panel considers that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the GEROVITAL trademark for the following reasons: (i) GEROVITAL is an invented word with a high degree of inherent distinctiveness; (ii) ‘cosmetics’ and ‘cosmetiques’ are ordinary descriptive words that describe in English and French respectively the products offered by the Complainant; (iii) the evidence demonstrates that the GEROVITAL trademark has an established reputation in respect of medicines and cosmetics; (iv) potential customers will assume that the disputed domain names are associated with the Complainants’ trademark.”
...
2011-07-28 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which it owns rights; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in 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 has provided evidence of its rights in the registered trademark CLIPSAL. ...
2012-02-13 - Case Details
Respondent has used the Domain Name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark, for a website containing sponsored links to competitors of Complainant. ...Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the registered trademark MET-RX. ...
2011-08-02 - Case Details
ii) Further, the ccTLD “.cc” can be ignored when addressing the issue of whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark of a complainant (Aventis Pharma SA., Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH v. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has proven that it has registered as well as unregistered rights in the trade mark ASHLEY MADISON. ...
2011-04-06 - Case Details