De conformidad con lo preceptuado en el párrafo 4(a) de la Política, para prevalecer en sus pretensiones, el Demandante tiene que acreditar todos y cada uno de los extremos siguientes: (i) el nombre de dominio en disputa es idéntico o similar hasta el punto de crear confusión con respecto a una marca de productos o de servicios sobre la que el Demandante tiene derechos; y (ii) el Demandado no tiene derechos o intereses legítimos respecto del nombre de dominio en disputa; y (iii) el nombre de dominio en disputa ha sido registrado y se utiliza de mala fe.2
B. ...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”.
2 En Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v. ...
2013-08-23 - Case Details
Complainant repeats that it has rights in a trademark and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
Complainant reiterates that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...Respondent states that Complainant has failed to substantiate any claims regarding registration of additional domain names for the purpose of preventing registration by trademark owners.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name comprises, in its entirety, Complainant’s registered PURVA trademark. ...
2014-09-23 - Case Details
In 1843, the Regional Court in Tours found against producers in the Loire Valley who were using the “Champagne” name to market their sparkling wines. A similar decision from the Court of Appeal in Angers, in 1887, set an early precedent for the “Champagne” name: “No one may understand by Champagne or Champagne wine anything other than a wine both harvested and produced in Champagne, a former, geographically determined province of France”.
...A Complainant is deemed to have rights in a geographical indication for the purposes of this Policy, if it has standing to bring an action based on the alleged infringement of the geographical indication before the courts of Ireland.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Is the word “champagne” a Protected Identifier for the Purposes of the IEDR Policy? Paragraph 1.3 of the IEDR Policy defines Protected Identifiers as including “geographical indications that can prima facie be protected in the island of Ireland. ...
2008-02-09 - Case Details
Hence, the Complainant concludes that each of the contested domain names is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark "EBAY" under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
2. Legitimacy
The Complainant contends, that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interest in any of the contested domain names.
...Such is indeed the case here with respect to Complainant, eBAY Inc., and its mark "EBAY". Also, for similar holdings, see, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Walmarket Canada D2000-0150 (WIPO May 2, 2000) and Cellular One Group v. ...
2001-01-18 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent does not dispute that, for the limited purpose of the first element, the disputed domain
name is identical or similar to the Complainant’s registered MEDITWIN word mark but contends that the
Complainant has not satisfied the second and third elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the
disputed domain name.
...Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2026-08-05 - 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:
6. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the 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.
7. ...
2020-05-11 - 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.
...
2021-06-29 - Case Details
The Complainant says that the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the SEMINOLE CASINO trademarks.
The Complainant says that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the term “seminole casino”.
...
2019-10-29 - Case Details
Many of the products sold or accessible at Respondent’s website are also available for license download (for a fee) through Complainant’s website, making Respondent a competitor of Complainant. Use of a confusingly similar domain name to sell goods competitive with those of the mark owner is further evidence in bad faith.
...
2007-11-21 - Case Details
Accordingly the principles developed by panels under the UDRP are relevant and instructive in many respects.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The test of identity or confusing similarity under the Policy is confined to a comparison of the disputed domain name and the trademark alone, independent of the products for which the domain name is used or other marketing and use factors usually considered in trademark infringement. ...
2012-04-30 - Case Details
There are several companies/individuals who use
the word hogshead in domain names or on the net including
and .
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The indication “.tv” officially designates a domain name registered in the country code top level domain for Tuvalu. ...
2004-09-01 - Case Details
Hence, the Complainant concludes that the contested domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's MSNBC marks under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
2. Legitimacy
MSNBC contends, that the Respondent has no legitimate interest in the contested domain name.
...
2000-12-14 - Case Details
The Panel refers to the co-Complainants as "Complainant."
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant asserts rights in the service mark and trademark "TENERIFE."
This word describes a land territory that is a province of Spain. ...
2003-09-23 - Case Details
Complainant makes an obtuse reference at Page 8, Paragraph C(iv)(a) and (v) of the Complaint to ‘renewal’ of the Domain Name, and makes a similar reference, without explanation at Page 7, Paragraph B(v). It is well established that renewal of a domain name by the same registrant does not amount to a new registration for the purposes of the Policy (See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.9).
...Complainant wanted to buy the disputed domain name and it was only after that didn’t work, that it concocted this Complaint and proceeded headlong without conducting any basic due diligence.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
With a printout from the USPTO’s trademark database for Reg. No. 3,308,883, Complainant has shown to the satisfaction of the Panel that for purposes of Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) it has rights in the WEEDS service mark.
...
2017-12-01 - 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 used in bad faith.
...The majority of the Panel considers this case very similar to the
case (supra).
The quotation from that case mentioned in the summary of the Respondent’s submissions
is apposite. ...
2002-06-14 - Case Details
case=D2007-0214
https://www.wipo.int/en/web/amc/domain-name-disputes/overview/index
page 4
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2026-09-11 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed Complainant must satisfy the Panel that:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
(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.
...
2019-01-04 - Case Details
The Complaint
Turning now to the substance of the Complaint:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided extensive evidence of its various trade mark registrations, both in Turkey and worldwide (including in Montenegro and the United States), its reputation under the trade mark AKBANK and its registration for domain names which use the trade mark AKBANK, for example . ...
2009-12-07 - Case Details
（参见WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), 第1.10段，“Consensus view: A domain name which contains a common or obvious misspelling of a trademark normally will be found to be confusingly similar to such trademark, where the misspelled trademark remains the dominant or principal component of the domain name.”）
...
2014-07-29 - Case Details
Accordingly, if an Internet user seeking to contact the Complainant at its Website was to misspell or mistype the domain name by leaving out an "N", that person would be directed unknowingly to the Respondent website. The close misspelling at issue here is confusingly similar to the Complainant mark. […] See, e.g., Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. v. John Zuccarini and The Cupcake Patrol a/ka Country Walk a/k/a Cupcake Party, (
WIPO Case No. ...
2014-12-17 - Case Details