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.
...
2002-09-18 - Case Details
Consequently, the Panel considers it reasonable to admit the
supplemental filing on the basis that both of the Parties have been treated with equality, and that each has
had a fair opportunity to present its case.
6.3. Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In the present case, the Complainant effectively asserts unregistered trademark rights in the mark
CREMEDIA on the basis that it has used the mark in commerce “for several years prior to the Respondent’s
actions”. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-06-24 - Case Details
Namely, the Complainant must prove that:
(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (paragraph 4(a)(i)); and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name (paragraph 4(a)(ii)); and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (paragraph 4(a)(iii)).
6.2 The Panel will address each of these requirements in turn followed by the Respondent's allegations of reverse domain name hijacking. ...This Decision has therefore been prepared on that basis.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.6 The Complainant claims rights in the term "goholly.com" as an unregistered trade mark. ...
2017-11-09 - Case Details
Complainant
Identity/confusing similarity
The relevant part of the disputed domain name is "isetan" and is
apparently identical with or confusingly similar to various trademarks registered
and used by the Complainant.
Legitimacy
The word "ISETAN" is well-known in Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand,
Hong Kong, China and other countries as the Complainant’s trade name and trademark.
...Substantive issues
To qualify for cancellation or transfer, a Complainant must prove each element
of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, namely:
(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
domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad
faith.
...
2001-09-12 - Case Details
Regarding any distinction in coverage between registered and unregistered
marks, paragraph 4(a) of the Policy simply recites: "You are required
to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that a third
party (a "complainant") asserts to the applicable Provider, in
compliance with the Rules of Procedure, that … (i) your domain name is identical
or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant
has rights" [emphasis added]. ...D2000-1374, December 11, 2000,
and Treeforms, Inc. v. Cayne Ind. Sales Corp., cited supra. For
similar holdings specifically in connection with registration of celebrity-based
domain names, see Roberts v. ...
2002-04-29 - Case Details
Selander, who was to start the Complainant’s new loan service on the Internet, the Complainant wanted to discuss a co-operation. Similar meetings that the Respondent had previously had with Resurs Bank (via TradeDoubler) and GE Capital Bank. ...The Respondent alleges that the Complainant has mislead the Panel by stating
that the parties involved are competitors and/or how they are in competition
with each other.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name in issue is identical to the Complainants registered trademark SVEA FINANS, the .com part to be disregarded.
...
2004-10-21 - Case Details
The Panel considered that it was appropriate to admit the Complainant’s supplemental filing and likewise
would ordinarily have provided the Respondent with an opportunity to answer this, but determined that this
would have given rise to avoidable delay and was unnecessary given the Panel’s decision to deny the
Complaint, as discussed below.
6.2. Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...However, the Complainant’s submissions in the supplemental filing cast doubt
upon the Respondent’s position regarding this handle and indeed its alleged YouTube handle of a similar
name, each of which might have provided an earlier date for its preparations to use a name corresponding to
the disputed domain name had they not been so challenged.
...
2026-06-10 - Case Details
Pursuant to Article 9 of the Regulation (EU) No. 2020/857 and Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(i)-(iii) of the ADR Rules,
the Panel finds that : The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which
a right or rights are recognized or established by the national law of a Member State and/or European Union law.
...
2026-02-26 - Case Details
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. ...
2026-08-19 - Case Details
Pursuant to Article 21(1) of the Commission Regulation (EU) No. 874/2004 and Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(i)-
(iii) of the ADR Rules, the Panel finds that:
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right or rights
are recognized or established by national law of a Member State and / or European Union law.
...
2023-04-05 - Case Details
Pursuant to Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(i-iii) of the ADR Rules, the Panel finds that:
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right or rights
are recognized or established by national law of a Member State and / or European Union Law.
...
2025-04-03 - Case Details
Wasserman from the Court.
7. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name is identical to the term SEASONAL COMFORT. What remains for determination is whether Complainant owns trademark rights in that term.
...
2021-01-15 - Case Details
Pursuant to Article 21(1) of the Commission Regulation (EU) No. 874/2004 and Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(i)-(iii) of the ADR Rules, the Panel finds that:
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right or rights are recognized or established by national law of a Member State and / or European Union law.
...
2021-03-31 - Case Details
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s company name FIMIPAR protected in France; the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and, the disputed domain name was registered as well as used in bad faith.
...
2021-04-29 - Case Details
The content of the supplemental filing in set out in section 3 above.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is not in dispute that the Complainant has established rights in the name “Fertiplus” by virtue of its registered trade marks and that the disputed domain name is identical thereto.
...
2018-08-03 - Case Details
It would particularly be burdensome in both time and costs.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. ...
2016-09-09 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is known by the corporate name, trade name and trademark WIPRO since 1977. ...
2018-10-29 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements that the Complainant must prove to merit a finding that the Domain Name of the Respondent has to be transferred to the Complainant:
(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.
...
2005-04-15 - Case Details
Arcari’s earlier interest in the Domain Name and offered
it to him at a discounted price of $4,000, which he eventually accepted, completing
the purchase on May 5, 2006.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There is no dispute that the Domain Name is identical to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2006-08-15 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is identical but for deletion of the definite article "the" and changing the plural to the singular, and is therefore confusingly similar.
2. The following is the Complainant's argument in full under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy: "Complainant's rights predate Respondent's registration. ...
2014-06-25 - Case Details