Complainant
The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s name and its trademarks. ...A complainant must prove each of these three elements to succeed.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant clearly has rights in the BOURJOIS trademark for the purposes of the Policy.
...
2016-02-09 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established its trademark rights in MARLBORO as evidenced by the trademark registrations submitted with the Complaint, as mentioned above.
The Panel is also prepared to find that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainants' trademark MARLBORO. The disputed domain name uses the term "malboro" which is confusingly similar to the trademark MARLBORO but without the letter "r".
...
2016-01-29 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark and, second, are the Disputed Domain Names identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
...Second, the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Names that are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s GROUPON Mark is evidence of opportunistic bad faith. See Ebay Inc. v. ...
2016-03-14 - Datos del caso
However, since the trademark is fully contained in the disputed domain name and the added descriptive term bears directly on the products sold under the mark, the Panel finds that the name is confusingly similar to the mark. See, Gregory Bros Pty Ltd, Gregory Jewellers Pty Ltd, LGR Holdings Pty Ltd v. ...D2002-0899 (finding to be confusingly similar to the KAY trademark).
Therefore, the Panel rules that the Complainant has succeeded in demonstrating that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2016-03-22 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark and, second, is the Disputed Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
...First, the registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a registered trademark by an entity that has no relationship to that mark may be sufficient evidence of opportunistic bad faith. ...
2016-04-22 - Datos del caso
Further, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is also confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
PRINCIPAL mark as this mark is entirely incorporated in the disputed domain name.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-04-17 - Datos del caso
Considering these requirements, the Panel rules as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel holds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks
GROUPE SEB. ...The Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark and
the Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2025-04-23 - Datos del caso
Accordingly, this Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to a trademark in
which the Complainant has rights.
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-04-22 - Datos del caso
Notably, the Complainant contends that:
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The
Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name incorporates the SYNGENTA trademark in its entirety
and is confusingly similar to its domain name . ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2025-05-26 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-05-26 - Datos del caso
See section 4.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions,
Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under the first element, the Complainant must establish that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly
similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-04-23 - Datos del caso
The Respondent is using the Complainant’s trademark on
the confusingly similar disputed domain name without permission. The Respondent is also not commonly
known by the disputed domain name. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-05-07 - Datos del caso
Therefore, according to Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with Complainant’s
trademark PERRIGO, fulfilling 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...
2024-05-16 - Datos del caso
The Respondent is using the Complainant’s trademark on
the confusingly similar disputed domain name without permission. The Respondent is also not commonly
known by the disputed domain name. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-05-07 - Datos del caso
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain...
...Discussion and Findings
To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant...
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2025-06-30 - Datos del caso
Considering these requirements, the Panel rules as follows:
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.
...The Panel f inds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s HALEON marks.
The Respondent’s incorporation of the Complainant’s mark in full in the disputed domain name is evidence
that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks. ...
2025-08-14 - Datos del caso
In the present case, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s trademark, which was registered before the registration of the disputed domain name. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-07-22 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-04-01 - Datos del caso
page 3
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prevail in a UDRP dispute, the first element that a complainant must prove is that the disputed domain
name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the complainant has rights.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-02-18 - Datos del caso
Notably, the Complainant contends that;
(a) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which
the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is identical or at least confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s MICHELIN trademark since the disputed domain name reproduces the MICHELIN trademark
by replacing the order of the letters “i” and “c”. ...UDRP Panels consider domain names which consist of a common, obvious, or
intentional misspelling of a trademark to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the f irst
element (See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9). ...
2025-04-14 - Datos del caso