page 4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-09-08 - Datos del caso
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the 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...
2025-10-29 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold inquiry: a threshold investigation into whether a
complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. ...Thus, the Panel finds that the Disputed
Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s REVE Mark.
Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the first element of the Policy has been established.
...
2026-02-25 - Datos del caso
The Respondent
registered the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark with the addition of a
third-party trademark offering similar services to the Complainant. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-01-22 - Datos del caso
page 3
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...
2025-10-21 - Datos del caso
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its service mark because
it contains the whole service mark. The Panel agrees, and finds that the Complainant’s service mark is
readily recognizable, and hence the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
service mark even though the Respondent has added the term “biomedspa”. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-11-14 - Datos del caso
Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel must first determine whether the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a
trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the
Policy. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel must first determine whether the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...
2025-10-14 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-08-21 - Datos del caso
It is standard practice to
disregard the gTLD under the confusingly similar test.
Having the above in mind, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to
the Complainant’s trademark and that the Complainant has proven the requirement 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...
2025-08-29 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name confusingly
similar to the Complainant’s trademark and applied redirection to the Complainant’s official website. ...
2025-11-04 - Datos del caso
This means that a deliberate misspelling of a trademark registered
as a domain name, which is intended to confuse Internet users, must be confusingly similar by design.
Thus, the disputed domain name must be considered confusingly similar to the Complainant’s OTSUKA
trademark in that it is similar to such trademark in both sight and sound. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to the information submitted by the Complainant, the Complainant is the owner of the trademark
OTSUKA. ...
2026-01-23 - Datos del caso
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The Panel is prepared to find that
the Respondent knew or should have known that the registration of the Disputed Domain Name would be
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s PHOENIX CONTACT Trademarks. WIPO Overview 3.0, section
3.2.2. ...
2025-11-26 - Datos del caso
That the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to sell RALPH LAUREN branded
merchandise, which suggests that the Respondent intended for said domain name to be confusingly similar
to the Complainants’ trademark as a means of furthering consumer confusion (WIPO Overview 3.0, section
1.15).
...The Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-02-20 - 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...
2026-02-10 - Datos del caso
Previous UDRP panels have concluded that a domain
name that consists of an intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered confusingly similar to the
relevant trademark for the purposes of the f irst element, and an example of such a misspelling is the
“substitution of similar-appearing characters.” ...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
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant holds various trademarks for ALIMAK. These trademarks are registered in various
countries, including in the United States of America, where the Respondent seems to reside. ...The incorporation of a trademark in its entirety is
typically suf f icient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark
(RapidShare AG, Christian Schmid v. InvisibleRegistration.com, Domain Admin, WIPO Case No.
...
2025-08-14 - Datos del caso
The evidence submitted by the Complainant also supports the conclusion that the disputed domain name is
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s DANSKO mark. As set forth in WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7,
when the entirety of a mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name, or “at least a dominant feature
of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name,” the disputed domain name is deemed confusingly
similar to the mark for the purposes 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...
2026-01-12 - Datos del caso
As to whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s AXA
trademark, the Panel observes that, as the Complainant points out, the Respondent has only added the term
“pagos-” (generic word in Spanish for “payments”), and thus the Panel finds that the disputed domain name
is confusingly similar to the 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...
2025-11-11 - 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...
2025-10-24 - Datos del caso
The disputed domain names which used to resolve to websites confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
website were registered on the following dates: on April 27, 2025,
on June 11, 2025, on June 12, 2025, and
on June 14, 2025. ...Respondents
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-09-03 - Datos del caso