The third element a complainant must establish
is that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
page 3
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establish that the disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar to a trademark 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...
2022-06-21 - Datos del caso
The third element a complainant must establish
is that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
page 3
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establish that the disputed domain names are
identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark as it includes the
Complainant’s trademark in its entirety combined with the word “my”. ...
2022-09-16 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has proved that it has rights in the trademark CENTERPOINT ENERGY.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the trademark CENTERPOINT ENERGY in which the Complainant has rights and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy therefore are fulfilled.
...
2022-03-02 - 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
The Panel finds, therefore, that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MODERNA
mark for purposes of the first Policy element and concludes that the Complainant has established the first
element of the Complaint.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-08-11 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has proved that it has rights in the trademark ELECTROLUX.
...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the Complainant’s ELECTROLUX trademark and that the conditions of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy have been fulfilled.
...
2021-10-29 - Datos del caso
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. ...It has also been established by prior UDRP panels that incorporating a trademark in its entirety into a domain name can be sufficient to establish that the domain name is confusingly similar to a registered trademark. Numerous UDRP panels have recognised that the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark. ...
2021-11-16 - Datos del caso
As long established by previous UDRP panels, this may be sufficient to determine that a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
The addition of the French possessive adjective “ma”, meaning “my” in English, and the use of a dash between “ma” and the Complainant’s trademark does not prevent the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
...Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
The Panel finds that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is met.
...
2021-11-24 - Datos del caso
It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, where appropriate, will decide consistent with the consensus views captured therein.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy it should be established that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the complainant has rights.
...As decided in previous UDRP decisions, the practice of typosquatting creates domain names that are confusingly similar to a relevant trademark, as has occurred in this case. See section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.
...
2021-11-30 - Datos del caso
In the absence of an objection by the Respondent, the
Panel does not find it procedurally efficient to have the Complainant translate the Complaint into Chinese.
6.2 Substantive Issues
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.
...To this end, prior UDRP panels have established that attracting Internet traffic, for commercial
gain, by using a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark may be
evidence of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP. ...
2023-01-13 - Datos del caso
Complainant
Complainant contends, in relevant part, as follows:
- The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SODEXHO Trademark because “[t]he only
difference between the signs is the reversal of the letters H and X”; and that it is confusingly similar to the
SODEXO Trademark because “[t]he only difference between the signs is the addition of the letter H”...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-04-14 - Datos del caso
Also, the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the domain names and
that are registered by the Complainant.
...The Panel will deal with each of the requirements in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the Domain Name is (i) identical or
confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, (ii) in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2022-12-23 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, there are two requirements which the Complainant must establish, first
that it has rights in a trademark or service mark, and second that the disputed domain name is identical or
confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-01-20 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark or service mark and, if so, the domain
name must be shown to be identical or confusingly similar to that mark.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-10-31 - Datos del caso
page 4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has registered several ONLYFANS and ONLYFANS.COM trademarks in the United States and
the European Union.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-12-28 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the CHEMOURS trademark. The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the CHEMOURS trademark in its entirety.
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” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2022-02-17 - Datos del caso
Long after the Complainant established its rights in its famous trademark, and with its knowledge, the Respondent acquired the confusingly similar disputed domain name to redirect Internet traffic to websites with links displaying the Complainant’s trademark and promoting PPC or affiliate advertising links for the Respondent’s commercial gain. ...Under such circumstances the Panel finds that the Complainant’s trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name and the copying of the Complainant’s sub-domain confirms that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name precisely because it believed that it was confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
Considering the above the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, therefore, the Complainant has established its case under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2022-02-14 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
As set forth in section 1.7 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) the standing test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the trademark and the disputed domain name to determine whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the trademark. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the BEIN trademark in which the Complainant has rights and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are fulfilled.
...
2022-02-09 - 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. ...It has also been established by prior UDRP panels that incorporating a trademark in its entirety into a domain name can be sufficient to establish that the domain name is confusingly similar to a registered trademark. Numerous UDRP panels have recognised that the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark. ...
2021-09-20 - Datos del caso
Complainant
The Complainant says that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its INSTITUTE ESTHEDERM trade mark. The deletion of the non-distinctive term “Institute” and the addition of the country-code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.ir” is insufficient to escape a finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. ...For the purpose of considering whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark, the ccTLD “.ir” is disregarded as this is a technical requirement of registration. ...
2021-08-09 - Datos del caso