In accordance with paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules, and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
UDRP panels have consistently held that domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trade mark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (See Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...In view of the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, in which the Complainant has demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Panel, that it has rights and commercial use of the same for several years.
...
2011-02-14 - Case Details
In accordance with paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules, and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
UDRP panels have consistently held that domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trade mark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (See Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...In the view of the Panel, the adoption by the Respondent of a domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark P90X inevitably leads to confusion on the part of Internet users and consumers seeking information about the Complainant and its products (see further on this point below). ...
2011-02-14 - 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Complainant
The Complainant contends that each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied in the present case, as follows:
(a) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant contends that by incorporating the Complainant’s SUPERGA trademark in its entirety, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. 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(s).
...
2020-11-27 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant claims that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BETTY BARCLAY trademark because the Domain Name incorporates the BETTY BARCLAY mark in its entirety. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP, the Complainant must prove that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2020-10-15 - Case Details
The Complainants continue that the Disputed Domain Name is clearly confusingly similar with Barclays’ rights. The Complainants submit that the Disputed Domain Name incorporates the BARCLAYS trademark in full, with the additional letter “w” at the end, which the Complainants state is insignificant and likely to go unnoticed by an Internet user.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BARCLAYS trademark, in which they have rights. ...
2019-12-30 - 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
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
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