Confusing similarity turns on
the similarity in sound, appearance and ideas suggested by the mark and the
domain name among other factors. It relies upon a previous UDRP decision;
Altavista Company v. Geoffrey Fairbairn, WIPO
Case No. ...The Panel takes into account previous UDRP decisions relating to the practice
of “typosquatting” which arises where the domain name is a slight
alphabetical variation from a famous mark e.g. Deutsche Bank AG v. New York
TV Tickets Inc., WIPO Case No. ...
2005-01-12 - Case Details
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
...d. the Domain Names are now being passively held, UDRP panels have consistently held that passive trading of domain names can be considered bad faith use of the domain name (in particular see Telstra Corporation Limited –v-Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. ...
2010-02-02 - Case Details
The Complainant has therefore established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name and thereby the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to produce evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name (see for example Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0624; Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0455).
The Panel finds that the Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to establish its rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. ...
2013-12-23 - Case Details
The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The disputed domain name was first registered on December 12, 2024. The disputed domain name is
offered for sale via a website hosted by GoDaddy, for the asking price of USD 2,988.
...
2025-05-01 - Case Details
The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with BigRock Solutions Pvt Ltd. ...The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and it has not acquired any trademark rights related to the disputed domain name.
...
2017-09-06 - Case Details
Domain Name Registered and Being Used in Bad Faith
On the evidence, it appears that the Complainant has rights in the domain name
. ...Domain Name Registered and Being Used in Bad Faith
Given the comments made above it is hard to find that in 1997 the domain name
was registered in bad faith. ...
2001-08-16 - Case Details
The Respondent is Ankit saini, Expedo Booking Planner Private Limited, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the
“Registrar”).
3. ...The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal
requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
...
2026-01-02 - Case Details
The Respondent is Stephen mckee, schneider.fr.com, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC (the
“Registrar”).
3. ...The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain
name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2025-03-10 - Case Details
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
...Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first and prominent part, “maxviril”, of the disputed domain name is phonetically identical to the trademark of the Complainant. The said first and prominent part of the disputed domain name is, visually, confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Community Trademark MAXVIRIL, the registration for which shows the letters “M” and “V” in upper case, the letter ”X” in a special stylized form, and the remaining letters in lower case. ...
2014-02-13 - Case Details
The Center verified that the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain
Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute
Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute
Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
...E.g., Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, Maison
Fondée en 1772 v. The Polygenix Group Co., WIPO Case No. D2000-0163 (disputed domain name
“so obviously connected with such a well-known product that its very use by someone with no connection
with the product suggests opportunistic bad faith”).
...
2025-09-29 - Case Details
Such a “bait and switch” strategy lacks bona fides and does not give rise to a right or a legitimate interest under the Policy (see inter alia Six Continents Hotels, Inc., v. EnterSports Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2008-1951, in which the panel stated, “Respondent’s predatory use of the domain name as the address of a website that, at one time, advertised hotel services competing with the Complainant’s business does not constitute a bona fide use of the domain name”).
...The burden of proving absence of a right or legitimate interest in a disputed domain name falls on complainant, but panels have long recognized that the information needed to prove such a right or interest is normally in the possession of respondent (see, for instance, The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. ...
2016-06-16 - Case Details
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
...In effect, the domain name merely replaces the word “WORK” found in the Complaint’s trademarks and domain name by the word “WEAR” which coincidently has the same starting consonant “W” and identical number of letters as the word “WORK”. ...
2006-05-05 - Case Details
Identical or confusingly
similar Domain Name: Policy 4(a)(i)
The Domain Name at issue
is . Complainant is the holder of the registered trademark
"UNIBET" and alleges that the disputed Domain Name is confusingly
similar to this trademark, save for the TLD ending ".com".
...As rightly stated in Infinity2
Incorporated v. Total Health Wellness, NAF Claim Nr. FA0094867,
"the purpose of UDRP Subparagraph 4(c)(i) is to exclude from the UDRP process
cases of entities who use or prepare to use a Domain Name without knowledge
that their doing so was or would be disputed." ...
2001-12-24 - Case Details
The Respondent is sammons sammons, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Gransy, s.r.o. d/b/a subreg.cz (the
“Registrar”).
3. ...The Panel finds that a dominant feature of the mark, namely “VF” is recognisable within the disputed domain
name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the
Policy. ...
2026-01-20 - Case Details
The Respondent is Rahul Kumar, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with One.com A/S (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal
requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
...
2025-04-28 - Case Details
The Respondent is daniel Silvino, daniel Silvino, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. ...The entirety of both the CVS and CVS HEALTH marks is reproduced within the disputed domain name.
Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the marks for the purposes of the Policy.
...
2025-06-25 - Case Details
The Respondent is John Ekpo, Nigeria.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The entirety of the Mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain
name is confusingly similar to the Mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2025-04-17 - Case Details
The Respondent is ning zeng, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Complainant adds that the
Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or any corresponding name and is not
making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
...
2025-06-27 - Case Details
The Respondent is Nadison Cherish, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Gname.com Pte. ...The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain
name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2025-02-04 - Case Details
The Respondent is Nadison Cherish, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Gname.com Pte. ...The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain
name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2025-02-03 - Case Details