Complainant
The Complainant contentions can be summarized as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant contends that it is a clear-cut typosquatting case. The Disputed Domain Name is highly similar to the BASF trademark and likely to create confusion in the mind of the general public.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complaint’s trademark BASF. ...
2020-09-15 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
Complainant has proven each of the three elements required under the Policy.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's distinctive and well-known HALLIBURTON mark within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...D2010-0722 (disputed domain name that adds one letter to complainant's mark is confusingly similar because "an unsuspecting consumer would find the disputed domain name visually and phonetically similar and almost identical to the Complainant's mark"); OOM Holding N.V. v. ...
2016-01-29 - Datos del caso
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its FORD FOUNDATION trademarks.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights in the FORD FOUNDATION trademarks by virtue of its U.S. trademark registrations Nos. 2930114, 2930115, and 3106166.
...
2007-08-17 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panelist finds that domain names at issue are either identical (Hewlett Packard v. ...Avrasya Yayincilik Danismanlik Ltd., NAF Claim No. FA93679) or confusingly similar (Marriott International, Inc. v. John Marriot, NAF Claim No. FA94737; Identigene, Inc. v. ...
2009-06-09 - Datos del caso
Varkey
WIPO Case No. D2000-0133). The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the CHICAGO TRIBUNE Mark because the CHICAGO TRIBUNE Mark is fully incorporated within the Domain Name and comprises the dominant portion thereof. ...Respondent, however, challenges whether its use of the Mark in the Domain Name is confusingly similar. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the CHICAGO TRIBUNE Mark because it is fully incorporated within the Domain Name and comprises the dominant portion of it. ...
2013-12-27 - Datos del caso
The Complainant therefore claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its Mark HESS.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect 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...
2025-12-23 - Datos del caso
The remaining question under the first element of the Policy is whether the disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s SILVER CREEK Marks (typically disregarding the gTLD in
which the domain name is registered, e.g., “.com”). ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-01-26 - 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...
2024-04-12 - 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...
2024-04-12 - Datos del caso
In particular, the Complainant asserts that:
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has
rights.
- The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademarks, in light
of the fact that it wholly incorporates the Complainant’s mark.
...The Panel may draw appropriate
inferences from the available evidence submitted by the Complainant.
page 4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element, the Complainant must have relevant rights in a trademark and the disputed domain
name must be identical or confusingly similar to such trademark.
...
2024-02-26 - 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...
2024-06-20 - 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...
2025-10-22 - Datos del caso
Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark CONTINUUS
PROPERZI, so much so that the disputed domain name is highly and severely confusingly similar to their
owned 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...
2025-01-03 - Datos del caso
Therefore, according to Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with Complainant’s
trademark BODOG, fulfilling paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy and paragraphs 3(b)(viii) and (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...
2024-10-14 - 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...
2024-10-04 - Datos del caso
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s CASINO DE MONTE-CARLO mark since it includes both the terms “casino” and
“Montecarlo”. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-04-16 - Datos del caso
The entirety of the Trademark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed
domain name is confusingly similar to the Trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0,
section 1.7.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-07-22 - Datos del caso
Previous panels established under the Policy
have consistently found that the registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a widely-known
trademark, as is the case here, creates a presumption of bad faith. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-07-15 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant is the owner of the trademark MYLÉ both by registration and acquired
reputation and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark MYLÉ.
...Procedural History
A. Complainant
B. Respondent
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has therefore met its burden of proving that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2022-09-06 - 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. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Disputed Domain Name consists of the EXCLUSIVE BEAUTY Mark in its entirety and then followed by the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. ...
2022-09-05 - Datos del caso