Discussion and Findings
Pursuant to 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.
...By Rules, paragraph 5(b)(i), it is expected of a respondent to: "[r]espond specifically to the statements and allegations contained in the complaint and include any and all bases for the Respondent (domain-name holder) to retain registration and use of the disputed domain name…"
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided evidence and has thus established its rights in the CONTOUR trademark in various jurisdictions including Ukraine where the Respondent is located. ...
2015-07-10 - Case Details
Although the disputed domain name is visually different from the Complainant’s trade mark DANFOSS, it is nevertheless confusingly similar to the Complaint’s trade mark as the disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s trade mark DANFOSS phonetically in its entirety. ...（参见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.”）
...
2012-03-28 - Case Details
These elements are that:
(i) respondent's 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) respondent's 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 has registered the word and design trademark VIEWGUARD on the Principal Register of the USPTO, and has provided substantial evidence of use of that trademark in commerce in the United States. ...
2010-06-01 - Case Details
Similarity
The Complainant takes the position that the contested domain names are nearly identical and confusingly similar to its marks "AOL" and "AOL.COM" as to likely confuse Internet users who may believe they are doing business with the Complainant or with an entity whose services are endorsed by, sponsored by, or affiliated with the Complainant; hence, satisfying the confusing similarity requirement in paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...Since the Complainant has never authorized the Respondent to utilize either
of the marks "AOL" or "AOL.COM" in any manner, nor does the Complainant have
any relationship, affiliation or association whatsoever with the Respondent,
then any use to which the Respondent were to put of the term "AOL" or "AOL.COM",
in connection with services identical or similar to those with which the Complainant
is using its marks, would directly violate the exclusive trademark rights now
residing in the Complainant -- rights which began accruing to the Complainant
over 10 years prior to the date on which all the contested domain names were
registered. ...
2001-06-25 - Case Details
Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights in any name remotely similar to the disputed domain name.
In light of this above prior conduct, Respondent is not making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of domain name.
...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.
...
2001-12-04 - 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 issues in turn. ...It would seem inequitable for a panel to find that court proceedings in relation to a domain name prevented that panel from considering the substance of proceedings under the Policy, if those court proceedings were not binding on the domain name registrant.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.14 This aspect of this case is relatively straight forward. The Complainant possesses a registered trade mark that comprises the word “Axelion”. ...
2009-01-07 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements that the Complainant must prove to merit a finding that the domain names of the Respondent be transferred to the Complainant or cancelled:
1. The domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark (“mark”) in which the Complainant has rights; and
2. the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names; and
3. the domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
That being so, the Panel will now proceed to enquire if the Complaint has discharged its onus to prove each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6A.1 The Complainant has rights in the trademark MAWANA SUGARS due to its long usage of the said trademarks for the last 55 years and has sought to reinforce these rights by moving appropriate applications for registrations with the Registrar of Trademarks. ...
2006-04-13 - Case Details
The Respondent requests that the Panel make a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the mark THE XYA by virtue of its registered trade marks for that term.
...
2017-07-10 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has shown to the satisfaction of the Panel that it owns numerous trademark registrations for the VIRGIN MEDIA and VIRGIN marks. ...
2017-01-03 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant’s trademark “AVIAPARTNER” is a mark in which the Complainant has had trademark
rights, e.g. in India, the jurisdiction where the Respondent has its address, for more than ten years before the
Respondent registered the disputed domain name. ...
2026-08-20 - Case Details
Pursuant to Article 4(4) of the Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/517 and Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(i)-(iii) of
the ADR Rules, the Panel finds that:
(i) 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 law; and
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...
2025-02-14 - Case Details
Pursuant to Article 4(4) of the Commission Regulation (EU) No. 2019/517 and Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(i)-(iii)
of the ADR Rules, the Panel finds that:
The disputed domain name is 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.
...
2026-09-15 - Case Details
The Panel concludes that the Parties have been given a fair opportunity to present their case, and so that the
administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition, the Panel will proceed to a Decision accordingly.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2026-07-20 - Case Details
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark
QUALIBAT registered 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.
5. ...
2026-05-08 - Case Details
Pursuant to Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(i)-(iii) of the ADR Rules, the Panel finds that:
The disputed domain name is 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.
...
2025-05-20 - 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. ...
2025-04-01 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant is the owner of the GIROTTI trademark, which is used to sell shoes under that brand. ...
2022-05-19 - Case Details
Considering the above, and for the sake of completeness of this proceeding, the Panel exceptionally
determines that it will admit the Respondent’s supplemental Response.
6.3 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
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 5
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use and registration.
...
2022-04-12 - 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 “secret soap” element is easily recognizable in the disputed domain name. Consequently, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
The disputed domain name has been registered by the Respondent without rights or legitimate interests in the name.
...
2022-01-31 - Case Details
The Panel has authority to decide the dispute examining the three elements
in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, taking into consideration all of the relevant evidence, annexed material and
allegations, and performing some limited independent research under the general powers of the Panel
articulated, inter alia, in paragraph 10 of the Rules.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant indisputably has rights in the SUDOCREM mark, both by virtue of its trademark
registrations and as a result of its continuous use of this mark over more than 70 years.
...
2023-04-05 - Case Details