Applied to this case, Paragraph 4 (a) of the Policy directs that 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 legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) that the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
...
2000-11-16 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
To succeed in their Complaint, Complainants must show that each of the conditions
of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied, namely that
1. the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service
mark in which complainant has rights; and
2. the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name,
and
3. the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
...
2001-06-12 - 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.
...
2002-09-18 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that Complainants must prove each of the following to justify transfer of a domain name:
(1) that the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainants have rights;
(2) that Respondent has no legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) that the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
...
2002-04-15 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
6.1 Applicable Rules
In accordance with paragraph 15 (a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide
the complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and
in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of
law it deems applicable.
6.2 Requirements to submit an administrative proceeding pursuant to
paragraph 4.a of the Policy
In order for a claim to be submitted to a mandatory administrative proceeding,
the Complainant must prove that:
(i) the 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 Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad
faith.
6.2.1 4.a....
2002-05-31 - 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;
and
- that the Respondent has no legitimate rights or interests in respect of the
domain name; and
- that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2002-04-17 - 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 rights or legitimate interests in
respect of the domain name; and
-That the domain name has been registered and is being used in
bad faith.
...
2002-06-07 - Case Details
The certified copy of the Respondent’s baptismal certificate and his Canadian Citizenship certificate show that his full name is as pleaded.
The domain name is not confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. A detailed analysis of the Canadian case law on confusion in the trademark context is set out in the Response. ...
2001-07-31 - Case Details
In addition, the Complainant must prove each element of paragraph 4(a) of the
UDRP, namely:
(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 domain
name; and
(iii)the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2003-08-11 - 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
To invoke the Policy, a Complainant must show that the domain name at issue is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights, that the Respondent lacks rights or a legitimate interest in the domain name, and that the Respondent registered and used the name in bad faith. ...
2015-10-15 - Case Details
Therefore had it been necessary, the Panel would have concluded that the Domain Name was for the purposes of the Policy confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights.
6.6 However, ultimately this does not matter. ...
2015-12-10 - 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