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.
...Respondents
7. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
8. Decision...
2022-07-22 - Datos del caso
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.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-06-24 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant is the owner of the trademark MICHELIN both by registration and
acquired reputation and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the MICHELIN trademark.
...Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
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).
...
2022-11-10 - 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. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-04-13 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), the Complainant shall prove 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...
2023-11-06 - Datos del caso
Complainant
Firstly, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
mark since it incorporates the entirety of the mark DREW. Additionally, adding the descriptive term
“merchandise” followed by the generic Top-Level domain (“gTLD”) “.shop” makes it even more confusingly
similar. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-11-03 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it has well-established rights in WALGREENS 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...
2023-11-01 - Datos del caso
page 4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel has no doubt that “Rothschild & Co” is a term directly connected with the Complainant’s
trademarks and centenary financial services.
...Finally, it is also already well established that the addition of a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) such as
“.com” is typically irrelevant when determining whether a domain name is confusingly similar to a
complainant’s trademark.
As a result, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademarks, and that the Complainant has satisfied the first element of the Policy.
...
2023-09-14 - Datos del caso
Additionally, it is well established that generic Top-Level Domains (“gTLDs”), here “.com”, may be
disregarded when considering whether a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in
which a complainant has rights.
In light of the above, the Panel considers the Disputed Domain Name to be confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s LÄDERACH trade 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...
2023-08-21 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a 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. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-09-22 - Datos del caso
The only remaining question under the first element of the Policy is whether the disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s FRANKIE SHOP trademark.
In this Complaint, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s FRANKIE SHOP
trademark because, disregarding the “.com” generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), the entirety of the
trademark is contained within the disputed domain name. ...D2017-0413
(“Respondent’s acquisition and offering for sale the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to a
well-known Mark does not establish rights or legitimate interests under the Policy”); and Elecnor, S.A. v.
...
2023-08-09 - 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 names are identical or
confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark.
...Respondent
6.2 Substantive Matters – Three Elements
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-08-07 - Datos del caso
Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s LINKEDIN
Trademark.
The Panel finds that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is met.
...Discussion and Findings
6.1 Language of proceedings
6.2 Discussion and findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-08-14 - 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
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-03-01 - Datos del caso
Complainant further asserts that Respondent is using a confusingly similar Disputed Domain Name to redirect Internet users to a website offering illegal services. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant further contends that the Disputed Domain Name is identical with and confusingly similar to the ONLYFANS Mark pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2021-09-15 - Datos del caso
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark and, if so, the Domain Name must be
shown to be identical or confusingly similar to such trademark.
...The addition of the term “you” does not prevent the Domain Name from being regarded as
confusingly similar to the Trademark. As numerous UDRP panels have held, where at least a dominant
feature of the relevant trademark is recognizable in a domain name, it is sufficient to establish that such
domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
...
2023-03-09 - Datos del caso
Taking the foregoing provisions into consideration the Panel finds as follows.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant must first establish rights in a trademark or
service mark and secondly establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its
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...
2023-02-02 - 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...
2023-01-13 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is identical with and confusingly similar to the
QUATRO CASINO Marks in which Complainant has trademark rights, pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the
Policy.
...Section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 says that inclusion of the entire trademark in a domain name will be
considered confusingly similar. Section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 instructs 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 first element. ...
2023-01-19 - Datos del caso
Complainant
The Complainant says that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its OPENINVEST trade marks. It incorporates the Complainant’s trade mark in its entirety and is therefore identical and confusingly similar to it. ...For the purpose of considering whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s OPENINVEST mark, the generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is disregarded as this is a technical requirement of registration. ...
2021-07-06 - Datos del caso