For this reason, the Complainants state that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainants’ VALERO ENERGY trademark.
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainants have demonstrated that they are the owners of numerous registered trademarks for the name VALERO ENERGY CORPORATION and VALERO in the United States.
...
2015-09-15 - Case Details
Having established this, the Complainant goes on to allege that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the SWAROVSKI mark because the Respondent’s domain name incorporates the Complainant’s mark in its entirety.
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SWAROVSKI mark.
The Complainant has thus met the first threshold of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2013-07-08 - Case Details
The Complainant further argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to itsLEGO trademark. The Complainant contends that the addition of the prefix “6688”, which is also one of Complainant’s brick sets, must be considered to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark.
...Accordingly, the Panel determines that the language of this administrative proceeding should be English.
B. 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.
...
2013-12-30 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant makes the following submissions.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. The only difference is the omission of the letter "i" in the Disputed Domain Name. ...A. 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 a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2014-06-27 - Case Details
The Panel will therefore deal with each of these requirements in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant must first establish that there is a trademark or service mark in which it has rights. ...D2000-0167, where the domain name was held to be confusingly similar to the trademark NIKE).
Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CREDIT MUTUEL trademark.
...
2014-04-02 - 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Therefore, according to Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with Complainant’s
trademark PINSENT MASONS, fulfilling paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, and paragraphs 3(b)(viii) and
3(b)(ix)(1) of the Rules.
...Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark
PINSENT MASONS, and so the requirement of the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2023-07-18 - 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