A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights in the trade marks PANDORA and PANDORA JEWELRY, through registrations of the trade marks and use, in respect of jewelry products.
...In the premises, the Panel finds the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the PANDORA JEWELRY trade mark that the Complainant has rights in.
The Complainant has therefore satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2010-12-21 - Case Details
Furthermore the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s DINERS CLUB mark as it consists of the entirety of the mark and adding a competitor’s mark MASTERCARD. Therefore, the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s DINERS CLUB trademarks are confusingly similar to each other. See Mastercard International Incorporated v. Indy Web Productions,
WIPO Case No. ...
2011-06-24 - 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
(i) The Complainant submits that the disputed domain names reproduce the Mark, in which the Complainant
has rights, and are nearly identical, and confusingly similar, to the Mark, insofar as the disputed domain
names contains the Mark in its entirety.
...If the disputed domain names are
compared with the DOMITYS trademark, the Complainant’s trademark is also confusingly similar.
It is well established that a ccTLD does not generally affect the assessment of a domain name for the
purpose of determining identity or confusingly similarity.
...
2022-07-20 - 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
Paragraph 4(c) sets out various circumstances which, if found by the Panel to be proved based on the evaluation of all the evidence presented, shall demonstrate that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant must prove that (1) the complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark; and (2) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark.
...The Panel also finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the DARDEN Trademarks. The disputed domain name incorporates “Darden” in its entirety. ...
2022-03-15 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Section 1.2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states that registration of a trademark is prima facie evidence of
Complainant having rights for purposes of standing to file a UDRP case.
...The Panel finds that the entirety of the LENNAR Mark is recognizable in the Disputed Domain Names and
the addition of the words “bid” and “offers” cannot prevent the finding of confusingly similarity, therefore the
Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the LENNAR Mark.
...
2022-09-22 - 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
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