a) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which
the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-
known GROUPE LE DUFF and LE DUFF trademarks. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-09-11 - Datos del caso
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s B
LIFE trademark as provided under 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...
2025-01-20 - Datos del caso
Based on the above and submitted evidence, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to
the Complainant’s Mark in which the Complainant has rights. Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been
satisfied.
...Discussion and Findings
A. General
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-06-07 - Datos del caso
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the Complainant’s
trademarks as the disputed domain name includes the Complainant’s IUMAN, INTIMISSIMI UOMO, and
IUMAN INTIMISSIMI UOMO trademarks. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-12-06 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Accordingly, the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly
similar to the trademarks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
...
2024-12-05 - Datos del caso
page 4
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 or Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-01-22 - Datos del caso
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s THE
ORDINARY trademark as provided under 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...
2025-12-22 - Datos del caso
In the Panel’s view this is an example of an intentional misspelling of a
trademark that results in a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark, and a typical case of
typosquatting. Accordingly, The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s trademark THE ORDINARY. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-11-26 - Datos del caso
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its DEVIN trademark. It
states that the disputed domain name incorporates the DEVIN trademark in full, and that the addition of the
two letters “ai” does not avoid confusion with that trademark.
...The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark DEVIN, but for the addition of the
letters “ai”, which do not prevent the Complainant’s trademark from being recognizable within the disputed
domain name or the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the
Complainant has rights.
...
2024-07-30 - 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...
2024-08-07 - Datos del caso
Policy, paragraph 4(a).
page 3
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
On the first element, the Panel finds that the Complainant’s registrations establish its trademark 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...
2024-08-06 - Datos del caso
Therefore, according to Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with Complainant’s
trademark PURL SOHO, 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...
2024-06-26 - Datos del caso
The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed
domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section
1.7.
It is well established that the addition of a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) extension (such as “.com” in
this case) is generally irrelevant when determining whether a domain name is confusingly similar to a
complainant’s trademark. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-06-26 - 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 LUNDBECK 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. ...
2024-07-08 - 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
MÖLNLYCKE. ...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.
...
2024-09-04 - 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
MÖLNLYCKE. ...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.
...
2024-08-28 - Datos del caso
Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
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...
2024-08-12 - Datos del caso
The Panel f inds that this slight change still leaves
the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s service mark.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9 notes that “A domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or
intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark
for purposes of the f irst element.” ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-11-06 - 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...
2024-11-06 - 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. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which
the Complainant has rights, meaning that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph
4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2024-11-21 - Datos del caso