It seems clear to me that the Site is not identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark.
The Respondent is a successful and critical visual artist, based in Los Angeles. ...D2012‑2353, the then panel had “no difficulty” in concluding that the Complainant’s mark was confusingly similar to .
The case for confusing similarity in this case is even stronger. ...
2015-02-13 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has provided sufficient evidence showing that it is the owner of the Evel Knievel Marks. ...Prior UDRP panels have recognized that the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety may be sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s registered mark. AT&T Corp. v. William Gormally,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0758 (finding confusingly similar to ATT); Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. ...
2011-03-17 - Case Details
Michael Bosman,
WIPO Case No. D1999-0001,
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Domain Name
The Complainant is required under Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy to prove that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
...Whilst the disputed domain name is not identical to the Complainant’s registered service mark, this Panel finds that it is confusingly similar thereto, notwithstanding the addition of the word “collection”. It is well established that a domain name composed of a trade mark coupled with a generic term may yet be regarded as confusingly similar to the trade mark: Yahoo! ...
2005-11-04 - Case Details
Complainant further contends that the Domain Name is identical with or confusingly similar to the MICROSOFT mark pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
Respondent has not contested the assertions by Microsoft that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the MICROSOFT mark.
...Therefore, the Sole Panelist finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the MICROSOFT mark pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
Rights or Legitimate Interest.
...
2001-01-30 - Case Details
Domain name found to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s PLAYBOY TV NETWORKS trademark.
Royal Bank of Canada .v. Personal [WIPO
Case No. D2001-0761].
Domain name found to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s ROYAL BANK OF CANADA trademark.
Ultimate Electronics Inc .v. Phayse Inc [WIPO
Case No. ...
2003-07-30 - Case Details
Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its MAG and MAGNASWEET trademarks because it uses the term "MAG" and deliberately sets this off from the remaining portion of the domain name with a hyphen. ...The Panel determines that the disputed domain name is not confusingly similar to "MAG" or "MAGNASWEET" within the meaning of Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
Having determined that Complainant has not established rights in a trademark which is identical or confusingly similar to the disputed domain name, the Panel need not determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests or has registered or used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...
2003-12-19 - Case Details
Application of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy to the facts
Identical or Confusingly Similar Domain Names
The UDRP Rules require that the Complaint "specify" the trademarks on which it is based and "for each mark, describe the goods or services, if any, with which the mark is used." ...Thus the NCAA has not met its burden of proving that names 21-32 listed below are identical or confusingly similar to the NCAA trademark.
Respondent’s Rights or Legitimate Interests in the Domain Names
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no legitimate interest in the domain names. ...
2000-12-01 - Case Details
D2002-0439 (ordering transfer of
and because confusingly similar to );
Pfizer Inc. v. Phizer’s Antiques, Case No.
D2002-0410 (ordering transfer of because confusingly
similar to Pfizer); OfficeMax, Inc. v. ...D2002-0354 (ordering transfer of because confusingly
similar to OFFICEMAX); Time Warner Entertainment Co. v. Zuccarini, WIPO
Case No. D2001-0184 (ordering transfer of , ,
because confusingly similar to Harry Potter, Looney Tunes,
and Scooby-Doo).
...
2002-09-03 - Case Details
For the above reasons, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s trademark in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...In the present case, the Panel must decide whether the Complainant has introduced elements of proof,
which allow the Panel to conclude that its allegations are true.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well established in previous UDRP decisions that, where the disputed domain name incorporates a
complainant’s registered trademark, this may be sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2025-01-27 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant asserts that the mark FIT BEARINGS has become a distinctive identifier of Complainant's products. ...Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trade mark.
The Panel finds for Complainant on the first part of the test.
...
2007-12-27 - Case Details
Also frivolous is the Respondent’s argument that the disputed domain name is not confusingly similar to the JUICEDB trademark because, even though they differ by one letter, “that letter makes all the difference.” ...There is no question that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar for purposes of the Policy and that the Respondent was operating a very similar website in the exact same industry. ...
2021-07-19 - Case Details
Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant must, firstly, 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 Complainant has rights.
...Privacy Protection / Muhammad Abubakar /or Domain & Hosting Provider
Case No. D2022-2042
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith...
2022-08-18 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the EQUIFAX trademark. The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is
confusingly similar to this trademark. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademark and hence the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...
2022-11-15 - Case Details
Therefore, the Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's LEGO Trademarks.
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name.
...B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is required to establish the two following elements: (1) that it has trademark rights, and, if so, (2) that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark.
...
2015-11-10 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Ownership of a trademark registration is generally sufficient evidence that a complainant has the requisite
rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) 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...
2025-09-10 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...It is also well established that the addition of a gTLD, such as “.com”, is typically disregarded when
determining whether a domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark as such is viewed
as a standard registration requirement. ...
2026-02-04 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the f irst 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...
2024-01-17 - Case Details
page 3
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Ownership of a trademark registration is generally sufficient evidence that a complainant has the requisite
rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) 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...
2024-01-16 - Case Details
Complainant
The following contentions are summarised from the Complaint.
Identical or confusingly similar
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to
the Complainant’s mark WESTERN UNION. ...These elements are discussed in turn as follows.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is clear that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s WESTERN UNION mark. ...
2006-09-26 - Case Details
Complainant states that no response was received to either communication.
Complainant asserts that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SAP trademark as it fully incorporates the SAP trademark and that the addition of the additional word “crossing” does not provide sufficient differentiation from the SAP trademark.
...In any event, the Domain Name contains the trademark SAP in combination with the descriptive word “crossing”. It is found that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SAP trademarks in which Complainant has rights regardless of the fact that Respondent has added the descriptive term “crossing”. ...
2009-11-24 - Case Details