A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There are two requirements that a complainant must establish under this paragraph; that it has rights in a trade or service mark, and that the domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the marks.
...The second requirement is that the domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the mark.
The disputed domain names are all confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks and consumers are reasonably likely to be misled into believing that these disputed domain names are associated with the Complainant's names, products, services and ultimately, achievements.
...
2010-03-29 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied when a complainant is able to prove two necessary elements: first, that the complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark, and second, that the domain name in dispute is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark on which the complainant relies.
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent's Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's CANTOR marks, and therefore the condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) is fulfilled.
...
2010-07-20 - 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark SB MÖBEL BOSS. The letters “SB” stand for the German abbreviation for “Selbstbedienung”, which means “self service”. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based upon the trade mark registrations provided with the Complaint, it appears that the Complainant has rights in the trade mark SB MÖBEL BOSS. ...
2012-06-12 - Case Details
It is a violation of Norwegian intellectual property law to use a domain name that is identical, of confusingly similar, to already registered trademarks or trademarks established by law.
3. The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith. ...The disputed domain name must therefore be considered confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark. The Panel holds that the Complainant has established the first element of the Policy, paragraph 4(a).
...
2012-06-05 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...To this end, prior UDRP panels have established that attracting Internet traffic by using a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark may be evidence of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP.
...
2015-06-17 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Annexes D and E to the Complaint show trademark registrations for TETRA PAK obtained by the
Complainant as early as in 1951.
...It is also already well established that the addition of a gTLD such as “.com” is typically irrelevant when
determining whether a domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark.
As a result, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademarks, and that the Complainant has satisfied the first element of the Policy.
...
2022-05-18 - Case Details
Registered and Used in Bad Faith
As noted above, the Respondent has failed to provide any exculpatory information or persuasive reasoning that might have led the Panel to question the Complainant’s arguments that the Respondent acted in bad faith by creating confusion to the detriment of the Complainant in registering a domain name confusingly similar to the Mark, which can be considered as “typosquatting”.
First, the registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a trademark by an entity that has no relationship to that mark may be, depending on the circumstances, evidence of opportunistic bad faith. ...Finally, prior UDRP panels have held that in certain circumstances, registrants of domain names have an affirmative duty to abstain from registering and using a domain name, which is either identical or confusingly similar to a prior trademark held by others, and that contravening that duty may constitute bad faith. ...
2021-03-15 - Case Details
In Knot We Trust LTD,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0340.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has submitted evidence of its ownership of registrations for the ARNOLD CLARK mark in the United Kingdom. ...The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ARNOLD CLARK mark. Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2021-05-27 - Case Details