Gregory Ricks, WIPO Case No. D2014-2041 all to similar effect.
Similar references have been made by panels in a number of decisions under the .se Policy for three-letter
domain names, where the registration and use of short domain names by domain name owners have been
considered legitimate. ...Summary
The Arbitrator concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Petitioner’s
trademark VOI and that the Petitioner has proven the first requirement under Section 7.2 of the .se Policy.
...
2022-03-29 - Case Details
ii) Substantive Complaint
The Complainant contends, with a body of evidence, that the Respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. ...The Panel found the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark THE KNOT and the domain name , the substitution of the word “my” for “the” before the word “knot” being insufficient to negate a finding of confusing similarity.
...
2008-03-26 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(i) Identical or Confusingly Similar
First, the Complainant asserts that, as a consequence of her continuous prior use of her name MARIO BARTIROMO over the past 14 years as a mark for her financial news reporting and commentary services, the Complainant has acquired common law trademark rights in her name which are sufficient to invoke paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...Hence, under paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel is directed to decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of the Complainant’s undisputed representations.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s MARIA BARTIROMO mark.
...
2007-04-27 - Case Details
Since none of the above circumstances are present in the case at hand, the Panel opts not to consider the Supplemental filing of the Complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided evidence of ownership of the International registrations for PROMAT Nos. 424653 of July 16, 1976, in classes 17 and 19; 623137 of April 30, 1994, in classes 2, 17 and 19; 707587 of October 9, 1998, in classes 1, 2, 17, 19 and 42; and 707588 of October 9, 1998, in classes 1, 2, 17, 19 and 42.
...D2000-0429 “the specific top level of the domain name such as ‘.net’ or ‘.com’ does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar”; Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B. v. Peter Ojo,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1770 “the accused domain name is legally identical to Complainant’s trade name CHEVY CHASE BANK”.
...
2010-11-09 - Case Details
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a domain name can be transferred only where the complainant has proven that each of the following three elements is present:
(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.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established trademark rights in the term ENPOWER and that the disputed domain name is identical with this trademark right since it incorporates completely the term ENPOWER.
...
2011-12-19 - Case Details
General
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that:
(i) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark 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 was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name is identical to the mark ADAC in which the Complainant has registered rights. ...
2013-06-19 - Case Details
case=D2012-1909
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 6
(i) the Disputed Domain Names are identical with 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 Names;
(iii) the Disputed Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights
The difficulty the Complaint faces is that it does not have any relevant registered trademark rights and the
question of whether it has unregistered trademark rights is not straightforward. ...
2022-08-12 - Case Details
These elements are that:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which complainant has rights; and
(ii) 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.
Each of the aforesaid three elements must be proved by a complainant to warrant relief.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant seeks to establish unregistered or common law rights in the trademark MCGRAW based on its use in connection with government filings, literature distributed to members and/or contributors to the conservation foundation, and to its use with an accompanying design on its website and on some publications.
...
2022-03-14 - Case Details
The website contains metadata reflecting the law firm representing the respondent in the prior UDRP proceeding.
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered trademark GIORDANA, denomination and domain names in which Complainant has rights. ...Under the circumstances, the Panel is satisfied that the present case concerns a new Respondent and that these proceedings do not constitute a refiled case.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has evidenced to the satisfaction of the Panel that he both as an individual, and also through Gita Sports Ltd., a company incorporated in North Carolina, United States of America, owns several trademark registrations the GIORDANA mark, covering clothing and apparel in International Class 25. ...
2017-02-13 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a), the Complainant must prove each of the following to justify the transfer of the disputed domain name:
(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 Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...Should the Complainant prevail in the present proceeding, it is up to it to engage with the Registrar to ascertain its eligibility to register the disputed domain name as part of the implementation of the Panel’s decision in the present proceeding.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided evidence and has thus established its rights in the PETPLAN trademark, as described in section 4 above. ...
2018-07-04 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the complainant prove each of the following three elements to obtain a decision that a domain name should be either cancelled or transferred:
(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 with respect to the domain name; and
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...International Electronic Communications Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel initially addresses whether the Complainant has established trademark rights in MARK GUAGLIARDO for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...
2018-01-19 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a), the Complainant must prove each of the following to justify the transfer of the disputed domain name:
(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 in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
As is apparent from the evidence submitted by the Complainant, it owns a number of registrations for VIKING trademarks in various European jurisdictions, including in particular, European Union trademark registration No. 009672445 for VIKING, registered on July 21, 2011. ...
2018-03-06 - Case Details
The Respondent submits that anyone had a right to register a common person’s name on a “first come first
served” basis, unless there was a trademark in existence, adding that when the disputed domain name was
registered, the Respondent was in Australia and did not know that the Complainant “had written in some
media”.
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...
2024-05-08 - Case Details
The Respondent
did not comment on this supplemental filing.
6.2. Substantive issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant in this proceeding does not claim having a registered trademark. He submits that he has
unregistered trademark rights in his personal name. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-05-21 - Case Details
Therefore, the Panel exercises its discretion to admit both Parties’ supplemental filings and will take them into consideration in this decision according to their respective relevance, materiality and weight as part of the evidence on the record.
6.2 Substantive Issues
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must prove each of the following elements:
(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 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
Based on the evidence provided, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the GS1 trademarks, including the GS1 wordmark (referred to below as “the GS1 trademark”).
...
2021-01-28 - 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; and
(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
For purposes of this first UDRP element, the Panel is prepared, despite the paltry evidence put forth in the Complaint (and the supplemental filing), to accept that Complainant possesses unregistered common law trademark rights in TRANSCRIP. ...
2021-10-04 - Case Details
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the STATA
trademark. According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name may be misunderstood as an artificial
intelligence (“AI”) model using the mathematical engine of a software product defined in the Complainant’s
trademark.
...Therefore, the Panel decides to accept and take into account the Parties ’supplemental statements.
6.2. Substantive issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2026-02-10 - Case Details
Substantive Matters
To succeed, in accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must satisfy the Panel that:
(i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical with 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;
(iii) the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
page 5
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2026-01-29 - Case Details
Pursuant to paragraph
4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the following
three elements are present:
(i) the Respondent’s
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.
(a) Identical
or confusingly similar
The only difference between
the domain name and the Trademark is that the domain name has ".ro"
at the end. ...
2001-05-30 - Case Details
Respondent
In his response, the Respondent has stated the following:
1. The domain name is not "confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark".
LEGEFORENINGEN is not a registered trademark or service mark, but is in fact a generic word which falls into the same category as "petrolstation" or "bookstore". ...Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following:
1) 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,
2) that the Respondent has no legitimate interests in respects of the domain name; and
3) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2000-11-22 - Case Details