Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established its trademark rights in the IQOS and TEREA
trademarks. The test that a panel must carry out for both disputed domain names in order to establish if a
domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark involves the comparison between the trademark and the
domain name.
...
2022-12-09 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends as follows:
(i) Identical or confusingly similar:
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark and prior UDRP panels have found confusing similarity where a dominant portion of a mark is contained in the domain name concerned. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element inquiry proceeds in two parts. First, the Complainant must demonstrate UDRP-relevant rights in a trademark. ...
2021-12-06 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends the following.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names and the MR. CHRISTMAS trademark are
confusingly similar.
...Respondents
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-05-22 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.6 Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, a complainant must prove that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
6.7 In line with such provision, the Complainant must prove two limbs, i.e., that it holds the trademark or service mark right; and that the Domain Name is identical with or confusingly similar to its trademark or service mark. ...Given this, the Panel has little difficulty in concluding that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a number of trademarks in which the Complainant has rights.
6.9 In the circumstances, the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2012-06-13 - Case Details
In light of the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name No. 1 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark INSTAGRAM, as it fully incorporates the Complainant’s trademark. ...The disputed domain name No. 12, where the Complainant’s IG trademark is separated by a hyphen, is in view of the Panel confusingly similar as the Complainant’s IG trademark still remains recognizable.
Finally, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name No. 13 is also confusingly similar to the Complainant’s INSTAGRAM trademark, as it contains a mere misspelling of the Complainant’s INSTAGRAM trademark by using an “e” instead of an “a”. ...
2021-01-11 - Case Details
D2000-0047, to the effect that when a domain name incorporates,
in its entirety, a mark in which a complainant has rights, a sufficient similarity
between the mark and the domain name is created such that the domain name is
confusingly similar to the mark.
6.8 This Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to marks in which Complainant has rights, e.g., U.S. ...Thus, Respondent’s website shows a warehouse club store in Bangladesh offering products similar to those offered by Complainant.
6.19 This Panel finds that Respondent by registering a confusingly similar domain name, more than likely with knowledge of Complainant’s marks and rights, and offering products through a warehouse club store has registered and used the disputed domain in bad faith.
6.20 When, as here, a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark
in which a complainant has rights and that domain name has the ability to divert
internet users looking for the complainant to a respondent’s website for
the pecuniary gain of a respondent, bad faith use of the disputed domain name
is established, i.e., the confusingly similar domain name causes confusion regarding
the sponsorship, affiliation, endorsement, etc. of Respondent’s website.
...
2005-11-01 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the domain names are all confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark RENAULT, and that in particular is confusingly similar to the trademark RENAULT BOUTIQUE.
...Use of domain names, confusingly similar to someone else's well-know trademark, for the only obvious purpose of selling them does not constitute a bone fide or fair use pursuant to the Policy. ...
2009-12-15 - Case Details
It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”) and, where appropriate, will decide consistent with the WIPO Overview 2.0.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ZPAGETTI trademark of the Complainant.
...In light of this pre-assessment, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ZPAGETTI trademark as it nearly fully incorporates the respective mark. ...
2017-03-14 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel agrees with the Respondent that many of the trademarks cited by the Complainant are not relevant and specifically that the Domain Name is not confusingly similar to the PORSCHE trademarks which the Complainant appears to rely upon. The Panel is also doubtful that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the PORSCHE DESIGN trademark. However the Panel does not need to decide this as the Panel is satisfied that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the PD trademark. ...
2016-01-26 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(i) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s TAMIFLU Marks.
...Hence, under paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel is directed to decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of the Complainant’s undisputed representations.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s TAMIFLU Marks.
...
2007-11-29 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(i) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s XENICAL marks.
...Hence, under paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel is directed to decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of the Complainant’s undisputed representations.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s XENICAL marks.
...
2007-11-21 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant’s marks are registered in the United States and many other countries. ...The Domain Name wholly incorporates Complainant’s distinctive marks and as such creates sufficient similarity to be confusingly similar (see paragraph 4(a) of the Policy).
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2005-03-11 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar: Policy 4(a)(i)
Complainant has established that it holds rights in the mark CAPSTONE MORTGAGE
for mortgage brokerage services, at least within the geographic areas of Massachusetts
and New Hampshire. ...The Policy protects also
against the bad faith registration and use of domain names that are identical
or confusingly similar to marks acquired through use under common law. Adobe
Systems Inc. v. Domain OZ, WIPO Case No.
...
2004-07-20 - Case Details
The Complainant represents that such deletion of a letter according to some earlier UDRP decisions does not change the mark’s overall impression and thus renders domain names confusingly similar to the marks. The Complainant therefore alleges that the Domain Names in dispute are confusingly similar to the USA TODAY Marks and USA WEEKEND Marks.
...The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There is no doubt that the domain names and are confusingly similar respectively to the trademarks USA TODAY and USA WEEKEND of Complainant for purposes of the Policy. ...
2003-08-01 - Case Details
Accordingly the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trade mark CREDIT
MUTUEL in which the Complainant has rights within paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...Accordingly the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trade mark CREDIT MUTUEL in which the Complainant has rights within paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2022-10-11 - Case Details
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has several trademark registrations for ELECTROLUX, which is also its company name. ...Given the fame of the Complainant’s marks, only someone who was familiar with the Complainant and/or its marks would have registered such a confusingly similar Domain Name (see Aventis, Aventis Pharma SA. v. John Smith,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0850; AT&T Corp. v. ...
2014-08-11 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold inquiry: a threshold investigation into whether a
complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. The Panel concludes that in the present case, the Disputed
Domain Name is confusingly similar to the FINE’RY Mark as explained below.
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2026-07-16 - Case Details
The disputed domain name currently resolves to a similar PPC
advertising webpage.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainants
Complainants submit that they own registered trademark rights as noted above and that the disputed domain
name wholly incorporates their TEXACO Mark and is confusingly similar thereto. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-08-11 - Case Details
In an apparent attempt to syphon off the Complainant’s goodwill, the Respondent registered the Domain Name which wholly incorporates the SHAKEOLOGY trademark and is confusingly similar thereto. The SHAKEOLOGY mark appears prominently and in its entirety as the first term in the Domain Name. ...The addition of “flavors” does not prevent the Domain Name from being confusingly similar to the SHAKEOLOGY trademark.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SHAKEOLOGY trademark for the purposes of the Policy and thus paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been established.
...
2019-11-07 - Case Details
iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well-accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-03-28 - Case Details