See section 4.2 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under the first element, the Complainant must establish that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly
similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...Respondent
7. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
8. Decision...
2025-04-17 - Case Details
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...
2025-05-15 - Case Details
D2000-0743 (finding bad faith under paragraph
4(b)(iv) of the Policy where the respondent registered a domain name confusingly similar to the
complainant’s mark and the domain name was used to host a commercial website that offered similar
services offered by the complainant under its mark).
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-05-20 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The reputation of the Complainant’s trademarks is clearly
established. The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. Under
these circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent likely knew of the Complainant and deliberately
registered the confusingly similar disputed domain names.
...
2025-01-22 - 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. ...It is well
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 4
established that a domain name that incorporates a trademark – or the dominant portion thereof – is deemed
confusingly similar to that trademark for purposes of the Policy despite the substitution of another term. ...
2022-09-15 - Case Details
As publisher and as operator of the website “www.sueddeutsche.de”, the Complainants are
the target of common conduct by the Respondent which has affected their legal interests.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainants must first of all establish rights in a trademark
or service mark and secondly establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a
trademark in which the Complainants have rights.
...Where at
least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in a domain name, the domain name will
normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing (see section 1.7 of
the WIPO Overview 3.0).
...
2022-11-16 - Case Details
The Complainant must still prove each of the three elements required by Policy paragraph
4(a)”).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
As a threshold issue, the Panel need not address Complainant’s assertions regarding Complainant’s
common law rights or pending application for the SEEKINS PRECISION (United States Ser. ...The remaining question under the first element of the Policy is whether the disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s SEEKINS PRECISION UNRIVALED INNOVATION
trademark. In this Complaint, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SEEKINS
PRECISION UNRIVALED INNOVATION trademark because, disregarding the “.com” generic Top-Level
Domain (“gTLD”), the dominant portion of the trademark is contained within the disputed domain name.
...
2022-12-05 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
I. Identical or Confusingly Similar
That the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the LIDL trademark, since it includes it entirely, plus the addition of the term “mania”, which does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.
...That panels have found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a well-known trademark by an unaffiliated party, constitutes in itself a presumption of bad faith.
...
2022-01-11 - Case Details
The Complainant considers the disputed domain names to be confusingly similar to a trademark in which it claims to have rights.
The Complainant further claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. ...In accordance with paragraph 14(a) of the Rules, if the Respondent does not submit a Response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute based upon the Complaint.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy it should be established that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the complainant has rights.
...
2022-01-19 - 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 mark NATWEST because the name contains the formative term “natwest” to which the term “-web” has been appended. ...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 factual representations.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark NATWEST.
...
2012-11-05 - Case Details
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SWAROVSKI trademark. It states that consumers expect to find a trademark owner on the Internet at a domain name comprising the company’s name or trademark. ...The disputed domain name is not identical to the Complainant’s trademark and so the Panel turns to consider whether it is confusingly similar to the SWAROVSKI trademark.
In Pfizer Inc v. The Magic Islands,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0870, the Panel held that the fact that a domain name incorporates a trademark in its entirety is a solid indication of but does not ipso facto mean that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark. ...
2012-04-05 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
As stated above, the First Complainant is the owner of a number of Community and UK registered trademarks in the word mark BURTON MENSWEAR. ...In addition, the Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name is and has historically been (whilst being identical or confusingly similar to the First Complainant’s trademarks) clearly for commercial purposes. The Panel has viewed the website to which the Disputed Domain Name points, and observes that it shows similar content to that captured in screenshots by the Complainants, and which the Complainants have submitted as exhibits to their Complaint. ...
2013-08-07 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
A complainant must establish two elements under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy: i) the complainant has rights in a trademark or a service mark, and ii) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark in which the complainant has rights.
...It is well established in previous UDRP cases that the added of top-level domains – being a required element of every domain name – is irrelevant when assessing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar.
In the light of the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark KERASTASE.
...
2013-08-12 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Summarizing all the facts presented, the Complainant is the owner of the well-known trademark LEGO. The disputed domain name is clearly confusingly similar to the Complainants registered trademark LEGO. The addition of the word “bucket” does not detract from the overall impression and the disputed domain name must therefore be considered to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark. ...
2014-05-02 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the MADEWELL
trademark. The disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the MADEWELL
trademark which is clearly recognizable in it, with the addition of the dictionary word “shop”. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-07-20 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainants’ trademark registrations conclusively establish that Complainants own trademark rights in the term VULKAN. ...In this case, the evidence as well as a reasonable common-sense understanding of the Policy strongly supports a finding that is confusingly similar to Complainants’ VULKAN Marks.
First, “vlc” is visually and phonetically similar to VULCAN. ...
2019-03-05 - Case Details
The Panel will therefore deal with each of these requirements.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element, the Complainant must first establish that there is a trademark or service mark in which it has rights. ...D2012-1395, where the domain name was held to be confusingly similar to the KAREN MILLEN trademark; Belstaff S.R.L. v. Jason Lau, Sharing,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0783, where the domain name was held to be confusingly similar to the BELSTAFF trademark; Lime Wire LLC v. ...
2018-07-02 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under the first element of the Policy, a complainant must prove that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights (paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).
...A complainant must then demonstrate that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark. Per section 1.7 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), the test for whether the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark is a relatively straightforward comparison. ...
2018-07-19 - Case Details
The choice of the name is therefore not a mere coincidence, according to the Complainant, but it is an intentional use of a name that is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark. The Complainant refers to LN-möbelhandels GmbH v. Edin Bektovic,
WIPO Case No. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) requires the Complainant to establish that the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which it has rights.
...
2008-11-07 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element the Complainant must have trade or service mark rights and the Domain Name must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade or service mark.
...The Respondent is using the Domain Name that is confusingly similar to the ONETRAVEL Mark to sell services under the SKY TOURS brand in competition with the Complainant and without the Complainant's approval. ...
2016-01-20 - Case Details