Paragraph 4 (a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove the presence of each of the following elements: (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 rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and, (iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2000-10-18 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that, for a complaint to be granted, 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 rights or no legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and,
(iii) that the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
...
2000-12-27 - Case Details
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) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2001-06-07 - Case Details
Discussion and
Findings
To qualify for cancellation
or transfer, a complainant must prove each element of paragraph 4(a) of
the Policy, namely:
(i) the disputed
domain names are 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 domain names;
and
(iii) the
disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad
faith.
...
2001-06-05 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
The burden for the Complainant under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is to prove:
(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 rights or legitimate interests in respect of
the domain name; and
(iii) That the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
...
2001-06-20 - Case Details
These elements are that:
(i) Respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) Respondent’s domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2001-07-25 - Case Details
The burden for the Complainant, under Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, is
to show:
-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;
-That the Respondent has no legitimate rights or interests in respect
of the domain name; and
-The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2002-05-10 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that, for a complaint to be granted, the Complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) that the domain names registered by the Respondent are identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks or service marks in which the Complainant has rights; and,
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or no legitimate interests in respect of the domain names; and,
(iii) that the domain names have been registered and used in bad faith.
...
2002-03-01 - Case Details
Discussion and Finding
A. The domain names at issue are confusingly similar to trade marks to which by registration and/or use Complainants have acquired rights prior to Respondent’s registrations of the domain names. ...
2002-06-06 - Case Details
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 4
In exercising their discretions in similar circumstances, previous UDRP panels generally considered, among
others, (i) whether the identity of the beneficial holder is disclosed, (ii) whether the beneficial holder submits
arguments explaining its position, or (iii) whether the relationship between the registrant of the domain name
and the beneficial holder is clear. ...case=D2007-0214
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 5
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2025-04-10 - Case Details
El primer elemento relativo a que cada nombre de dominio en disputa resulta ser idéntico o similar en grado de confusión respecto a una marca sobre la que el Promovente tiene derechos se actualiza a plenitud independientemente de que dicha marca contenga un guión intermedio.
...D2008-0183 se establece: “The Policy was adopted to deal with the problem of cybersquatting - that is, 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 the mark”. ...
2020-12-11 - Case Details
The "EVAN-PICONE" marks
The Complainant owns numerous United States and counterpart foreign trademark registrations for the mark "EVAN-PICONE" (as well as similar marks containing the words "EVAN-PICONE" or "PICONE" as formatives) on which this dispute is based (collectively the "EVAN-PICONE" marks). ...Similarity
The Complainant takes the position that the contested domain name is identical, but for the inclusion of a hyphen in the mark, and hence confusingly similar to its registered "EVAN-PICONE" marks, so as to ostensibly and likely confuse Internet users as to source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement between the Respondent's web site and the Complainant; hence, satisfying the confusing similarity requirement in paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2002-01-10 - Case Details
It denies having registered and used the domain names in bad faith.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain names and are identical to the trademark KAMBLY in which the Complainant has rights in Switzerland, the United States of America and may other countries, such as Canada. ...It continued: "The basis for the above amount is based on domain name value and sales of similar domains by broker services. It is our opinion that this is below market value."
In addition to that, the Respondent offered the option of pursuing an aggressive Internet commerce and national mail order program for KAMBLY products with the Complainant.
...
2004-03-19 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
This is a difficult case to resolve for several reasons, including a recent spate of UDRP panel opinions under a modified approach to determining bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated longstanding trademark rights in the word SPORTO, and the disputed domain name is identical to this term. ...Rugs of the World Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1856, for a similar holding in closely analogous circumstances....
2010-03-05 - Case Details
In any event, even if the Panel
had admitted the Respondent’s supplemental filing, it would not have affected the outcome of this
proceeding.
6.2 Substantive Elements of the Policy
The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark.
Disregarding the Second-Level Domain and country code Top-Level Domain, the disputed domain name is
identical to the Trade Mark.
...
2026-01-02 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different disputed domain
name registrants (referred to below as “the Respondent”) in a single proceeding.
6.3 Findings on the Merits
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2026-06-25 - Case Details
The Panel may also conduct limited independent research pursuant to its general powers,
as provided, inter alia, in paragraph 10 of the Rules.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2026-06-15 - Case Details
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.1/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.1/
page 5
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2026-07-17 - Case Details
Das Beschwerdepanel stellt daher fest, dass der streitige Domainname mit der Marke der
Beschwerdeführerin verwechslungsfähig ähnlich („confusingly similar“) ist. Die erste Voraussetzung der
Richtlinie ist daher erfüllt.
B. Rechte oder berechtigte Interessen
Absatz 4(c) der Richtlinie nennt beispielhaft Umstände, unter denen eine Beschwerdegegnerin Rechte oder
berechtigte Interessen an einem Domainnamen nachweisen kann. ...
2026-09-17 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant contends it has (common law) rights in the name TEXAS MEDIA PROPERTIES, which it has
used as a business name since 2009. ...
2023-05-08 - Case Details