Complainant
The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. In creating
the disputed domain names, the Respondent has added the generic, descriptive terms “follower/followers”,
“buy”, “free”, “app”, “how to get”, “bot”, “counter”, “online”, and “generator” to the Complainant’s trademark,
thereby making the disputed domain names confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. ...The
Panel finds that in the present case the addition of terms “buy”, “follower”, “followers”, “free”, “app”, “how”,
“to”, “get”, “bot”, “counter”, “free”, “online” and “generator” to the respective disputed domain names do not
prevent finding it confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
Considering the above, the Panel finds the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s trademark, therefore, the Complainant has established its case under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the
Policy.
...
2022-10-12 - Case Details
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. ...First, the registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a trademark by an entity that has no
relationship to that mark may be sufficient evidence of opportunistic bad faith. ...
2022-11-22 - Case Details
It is generally regarded as prima facie evidence of no rights or legitimate interests if a complainant shows that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark, that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and that a complainant has not authorized the respondent to use its mark (or an expression which is confusingly similar to its mark), whether in the disputed domain name or otherwise. ...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Complainant contends that because Respondent has created a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s VERKADA Mark, as well as its domain, as found in section 6.A. above it is implausible to believe that Respondent did not have actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark when it registered its confusingly similar domain name. ...
2021-04-16 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its ZIONS trademarks because the disputed domain name reproduces the ZIONS mark but with the “s” omitted.
...In Knot We Trust LTD,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0340.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Ownership of a nationally registered trademark constitutes prima facie evidence that the complainant has the requisite rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...
2019-12-24 - Case Details
Therefore, the Panel – in line with countless previous UDRP panels facing similar circumstances involving the addition of generic terms to established marks – must find that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's service mark. ...FA1257933 (finding to be confusingly similar to the trademark VICTORIA'S SECRET, where the owner of that mark sold an extensive line of shoes).
...
2009-08-11 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel must find that the Complainants have a trademark or service mark and that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to that trademark or service mark for the Complainants to succeed.
...D2000-0937 (the domain names and are confusingly similar to trademark ALTA VISTA); Oxygen Media, LLC v. Primary Source,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0362 (the domain name <0xygen.com>, spelled with a zero rather than the letter "o", is confusingly similar to trademark OXYGEN); The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. v. ...
2018-01-08 - Case Details
D2000–1698, in which it was said:
‘The Respondent does not deny that the disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the GUINNESS trademark. Rather he says there is no trade marks infringement because his site does not sell similar wares in the same geographical sphere as the Complainant. ...In view of the finding that the Domain Name is not confusingly
similar to the trademark EASYMOBILE, the Panel need not and does not make any
finding on the issue of bad faith registration and use.
7. ...
2005-08-02 - Case Details
It is generally regarded as prima facie evidence of no rights or legitimate interests if a complainant shows that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark, that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and that a complainant has not authorized the respondent to use its mark (or an expression which is confusingly similar to its mark), whether in the disputed domain name or otherwise. ...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Complainant contends that because Respondent has created a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MIDDLEBY Mark and the domain used to access its official Website “www.middleby.com”, as discussed in section 6.A. above, it is implausible to believe that Respondent was not aware of Complainant’s MIDDLEBY Mark when it registered its confusingly similar domain name. ...
2021-09-01 - Case Details
The Panel finds, therefore, the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the PRIDESTAFF Mark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Complainant contends that because Respondent has created a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PRIDESTAFF Mark (and the domain name used to access the Official Website, as discussed in section 6.A. above), it is implausible to believe that Respondent was not aware of Complainant’s PRIDESTAFF Mark when it registered its confusingly similar domain name. ...
2021-09-14 - Case Details
b) Identity or Confusing Similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and Complainant’s Trademark
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is a purposeful misspelling of the trademark XENICAL and therefore, the former is confusingly similar to the latter.
Before establishing whether or not the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark XENICAL, the Panel wants to point out that the addition of generic top-level domains (gTLD), i.e., “.com,” “.biz,” “.edu,” “.org”, “co”, “.info”, is typically not considered when determining if the registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the registered trademark. ...The Panel believes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark XENICAL. Moreover, the spelling similarity is a criterion used by several Trademark Offices4 to determine whether or not two trademarks are confusingly similar. ...
2012-05-09 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent contends that the Domain Names are not confusingly similar to Complainant’s VAPE WORLD trademarks as the marks both include a common or generic element. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel must first determine whether the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. ...
2014-12-01 - Case Details
The Panel further finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark GAYDAR, except for the addition of the word “match”. ...The Panel is prepared to find that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark rights when it registered a confusingly similar domain name, and when it began operating a website in connection with that confusingly similar domain name which provides identical services to that of the Complainant.
...
2011-03-25 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly
Similar
The Panel finds that the
Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's SIMILAC mark because the
Domain Name incorporates that mark in its entirety and because the addition
of the descriptive and/or generic word "baby" in the Domain Name does
not sufficiently distinguish it from Complainant's SIMILAC mark. ...The Panel also finds the
Domain Name confusingly similar to Complainant's SIMILAC mark because the descriptive
word "baby" relates to Complainant's business. ...
2004-04-19 - Case Details
“Domain names which constitute typo-squatting are confusingly similar by definition; it is this similarity which
makes them attractive.” Dell Computer Corp. v. ...Respondents
6. Discussion and Findings
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-07-28 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark or trademarks and, second, is the Disputed Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to those trademarks.
...D2004-0117 (a domain name incorporating a well-known trademark combined with a geographically descriptive term is confusingly similar to the trademark); Inter-IKEA Systems B.V. v. Hoon Huh,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0438 (the addition of the term “korea” in does not prevent the domain name from being confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark).
...
2021-01-25 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant’s can be summarized as follows.
The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SNUGGIE trademark. It differs only in the addition
of the letter “s”.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the SNUGGIE trademark. The Panel finds the Disputed
Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SNUGGIE trademark. ...
2023-02-06 - Case Details
Policy, paragraph 4(a).
(i). Identical or Confusingly Similar
On the first element, the Complainant must prove that (1) it has rights in a trademark, and (2) the Domain
Name is identical or confusingly similar to this trademark. ...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s globally famous INSTAGRAM trademark.
Panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a
well-known trademark, particularly where the Respondent adds a descriptive word to the trademark, can
create a presumption of bad faith registration. ...
2023-04-28 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...It is an accepted principle that gTLDs, in this case “.com”, are to be typically disregarded in the consideration
of the issue of whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark.
Disregarding the gTLD “.com”, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s trademark.
...
2025-07-09 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant does have registered trademark rights in the mark TONY LAMA by virtue of its trademark registrations, including those listed in paragraph 4 of this Decision.
...The Panel finds that the Respondent registered a confusingly similar domain name to interfere with the Complainant’s business by diverting unsuspecting Internet users away from the Complainant’s website to the Respondent’s website. ...
2016-02-04 - Case Details
After weighing all of these factors, the Panel considers that the disputed domain name is therefore confusingly similar to the Complainant’s LEGO trademark. See, BA&SH v. Yan Wei,
WIPO Case No. D2019-2578 (finding to be confusingly similar to the BA&SH mark); LEGO Juris A/S v. ...D2017-1902 (finding that, among others, the disputed domain name, , was confusingly similar to the SUPREME mark).
As a result, the Panel finds that the Complainant has succeeded in proving that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2020-05-27 - Case Details