Michael
Robertson, WIPO Case No. D2000-0009).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel agrees with Complainant’s allegation that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s MICHELIN mark.
...“[T]he mere registration of a domain name that is identical or
confusingly similar (particularly domain names . . . incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a
famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith.”
...
2023-06-26 - 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
Therefore, according to Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with Complainant’s
trademark LPL, fulfilling paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy and paragraphs 3(b)(viii) and 3(b)(ix)(1) of the Rules.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-02-29 - Datos del caso
Therefore, according to Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with Complainant’s
trademark NORMANN COPENHAGEN, fulf illing 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...
2024-02-28 - 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
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
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
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 is confusingly similar to its
HOLIDAY INN trademark, which it describes as “renowned” and “well-known”. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-01-15 - 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
Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a
trademark for purposes of the Policy when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar
approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name. ...D2018-2348, which concerned the domain name in which the
panel held that was confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s HMRC
trademark.
...
2022-05-31 - Datos del caso
As such, the Panel
finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademark, and
accordingly, paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-05-27 - Datos del caso
The Complainant believes the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SOREL
trademark. The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its well-known
trademark SOREL as they incorporate the whole of Complainant’s SOREL trademark. ...It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, where appropriate, will
decide consistent with the WIPO Overview 3.0.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered SOREL trademarks
owned by the Complainant. ...
2022-08-30 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in the Complainant’s Trademark, based on its various
trademark registrations listed above in Section 4.
...As such, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
Trademark, and accordingly, paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2022-06-03 - Datos del caso
The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s FIDELITY
trademark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established paragraph 4(a)(i) of the
Policy.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-06-02 - 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.
...
2022-05-06 - Datos del caso
Nevertheless, the Panel may rule in the Complainant’s favor only after the
Complainant has proven that the above elements are present.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant is required to establish that the disputed domain
name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...Therefore, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s trademark because it is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name.
...
2022-07-01 - Datos del caso
The Complainant bears the burden of proof for each of these elements.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain names are
identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly
similar to the Complainant’s LEGO marks. The Respondent’s incorporation of the Complainant’s mark in
full in the disputed domain names is evidence that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s marks. ...
2022-06-30 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights over the trademark BLACKBAUD based on the
trademark registrations cited under section 4 above.
...As indicated above, the disputed domain name, confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, has
been pointed to a website displaying pay-per-click links related to the Complainant’s market niche.
...
2022-06-29 - Datos del caso