However, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent's default.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.
The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. The Disputed Domain Name wholly incorporates the Trade Mark, and combines the Trade Mark with a geographical description (being "Miami"). ...
2015-12-08 - Case Details
Complainant further contends
that the Domain Name is identical with and confusingly similar to the TOYS FOR
TOTS service mark pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
Respondent has not contested
the assertions by Complainant that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to
the TOYS FOR TOTS mark.
...Therefore, the Sole Panelist
finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the TOYS FOR TOTS mark
pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i)
Rights or Legitimate
Interest.
...
2001-03-22 - Case Details
The Complainant therefore asserts that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its famous NIKE trademark.
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no legitimate interests in the Domain Name. ...A panelist, however, can only rule in a complainant’s favor only after the complainant has proven that the above-listed elements are present.
Element (i) - Domain Name Identical or Confusingly Similar to the Mark
Under the Policy, the Panelist must determined if the Domain Name in the present proceeding is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...
2002-09-16 - Case Details
Other prior Panels have consistently
found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or
widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith (see
WIPO Overview 3.0, Section 3.1.4). ...Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
B. Respondent
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-10-07 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends the following.
The Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Trade Marks as they incorporate both the MGM
Trade Mark and the BetMGM Trade Mark in their entirety. ...Yuliia Petlenko
Case No. DNL2026-0008
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith...
2026-06-23 - Case Details
The Panel also finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to that mark. The disputed domain names incorporate the Complainant’s mark entirely. It is well established that the entire incorporation of a complainant’s well-known mark can be sufficient for a finding of confusing similarity. ...In that case, the then panel noted that “It has been held in many previous UDRP cases that incorporating a trademark in its entirety is typically sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark (see Oakley, Inc. v. Kate Elsberry, Elsberry Castro,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-01-31 - Case Details
Respondent – the Response dated January 15, 2013
(i) Is the Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights?
The Respondent denies that the Domain Name is identical to or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights and are plainly not identical to the Complainant’s domain name .
...The respondent in that case appeared to accept that the site was identical to or confusingly similar to the relevant mark whereas identity or confusingly similarity is denied in this case by the Respondent. ...
2013-02-25 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s trademark with a third “t” added in the middle of the other two within its name and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. ...Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is at least confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark rights.”
For essentially the same reasons, the Panel concludes here that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to both the Complainant’s registered trademark.
...
2014-01-23 - Case Details
It also has registrations for its official logo.
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's AL JAZEERA trade mark as the Domain Name contains it in its entirety. ...The Respondent is diverting consumers to its web site and offering similar services to the Complainant on a web site that looks confusingly similar to the Complainant's web site and used the Complainant's official logo on that site. ...
2017-10-04 - Case Details
Moreover, the Panel is of the view that the consolidation of multiple domain name disputes
in a single proceeding would be fair and equitable to all parties in this case.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is of the opinion that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademark. ...B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-07-24 - Case Details
The only remaining question under the first element of the Policy is whether the disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SOL DE JANEIRO trademark. In this case, the disputed
domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SOL DE JANEIRO trademark because,
disregarding the “.com” and “.shop” gTLD, the entirety of the mark is reproduced within each disputed
domain name. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-10-08 - Case Details
Thus, although in this case Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint, the burden remains with
Complainant to establish the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy by a preponderance of the
evidence.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, a complainant must demonstrate rights in the mark to which it asserts
the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar. ...Thus, although in this case Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint, the burden remains with Complainant to establish the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy by a preponderance of the evidence.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, a complainant must demonstrate rights in the mark to which it asserts the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar. ...
2026-09-10 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name”. ...In other words, Respondent has through the use of a confusingly similar disputed domain name created a likelihood of confusion with the LPL and LPL FINANCIAL marks. ...
2021-04-22 - Case Details
That the disputed domain name was registered on September 16, 2022, being that the Complainant has had
previous registered rights since at least June 4, 2016, in addition to its common law rights that have been
recognized by prior UDRP panels.
I. Identical or Confusingly Similar
That the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks, since the
disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s ONLYFANS trademark with the only difference being
the absence of the letter “s”, which does nothing to avoid confusing similarity.
...That the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name not because it refers to, or is
associated with the Respondent, but because the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to
the domain name and the trademarks used by the Complainant in association with its
services.
...
2023-06-06 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a
trademark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar
approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name”. ...Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondent is currently using the confusingly
similar disputed domain name with the intention to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to
Respondent’s website.
...
2023-04-14 - Case Details
case=D2019-0234
page 5
Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a
trademark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar
approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name.” ...The Panel therefore holds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s JLL marks,
and the Complaint fulfils the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2023-07-06 - Case Details
Prior panels have held that a deliberate misspelling
of a trademark registered as a domain name, which is intended to confuse Internet users, must be
confusingly similar by design. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.9; See also Allstate Insurance Company
v. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-03-30 - Case Details
On the same
website content, the Respondent uses a confusingly similar logo to the Complainant’s WHATSAPP
Logo depicted above, also with the letters “GB” added to it...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-01-30 - Case Details
case=D2003-0230
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 6
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision
Pedro W. ...
2024-08-06 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a
trademark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar
approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name”. ...In other words, Respondent has through the use of a confusingly
similar disputed domain name created a likelihood of confusion with the AMINA MUADDI marks. ...
2022-09-12 - Case Details