A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights. ...Second, the domain name is confusingly
similar to that mark. The “.com” top-level domain name is properly
ignored in this analysis. ...
2006-11-09 - Case Details
Panels have often found that a
domain name that incorporates a distinctive mark in its entirety is confusingly
similar to the mark. EAuto L.L.C. v. Triple S. Auto Parts, D2000-0047
(WIPO March 24, 2000) (finding that the addition of a word to the end of a distinctive
mark created a Domain Name that was confusingly similar to the mark). It is
possible, of course, that a domain name comprised of a distinctive mark and
additional words may not be confusingly similar, as the additional words alter
the sense of the distinctive mark. However, this is not the case here. ...
2002-02-14 - Case Details
As such, the overall impression remains one of similarity with the Complainant's BLACKBERRY mark. For this reason, and for somewhat similar reasons to those set out in relation to domains 1 – 90, the Panel finds that it is confusingly similar.
...The term “backberry” is also visually and phonetically similar to the Complainant's BLACKBERRY mark. For these reasons, the Panel finds that these disputed domain names are confusingly similar with the Complainant's BLACKBERRY mark.
...
2009-05-28 - Case Details
D2022-2497
(in finding confusingly similar to the EQUIFAX Trademark, panel said, “[t]he mere deletion of
two letters does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity”); Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. v. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-11-18 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
5.A The Complainant
5.A.1 Identical or Confusingly Similar
5.A.1.1 The Complainant's case is that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered trademark of which it is the proprietor. ...D2001-0489 found the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the WALT DISNEY trademark. Similarly, the decision in
WIPO Case No. D2000-0587 found the disputed domain names and confusingly similar to the YAHOO trademark and the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the GEOCITIES trademark. ...
2008-11-25 - Case Details
The disputed domain name, , is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark, as the name incorporates the full mark with the generic word “abuse” and the gTLD “.com”. ...See, AT&T Corp., supra (“Registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a famous trademark by any entity which has no relationship to that mark is itself sufficient evidence of bad faith registration and use.”); and The Caravan Club v. ...
2010-06-30 - Case Details
The very purpose in the
Respondent choosing the (confusingly similar) Domain Name it did was to deliberately create a false
impression of association with the Complainant. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar...
2022-09-29 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark FFT and the Domain Name includes in its entirety the above mentioned trademark. ...Therefore, the Respondent contends, the Domain Name has been registered and is being used for bona fide purposes.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights
The Panel accepts that the Complainant was founded in 1920, uses the F.F.T. acronym and promotes, organizes and develops tennis in France. ...
2015-06-23 - Case Details
Prior UDRP panels have recognized that the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety may be sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s registered mark. AT&T Corp. v. William Gormally,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0758 (finding confusingly similar to ATT); Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. ...MTO C.A. and Diabetes Education Long Life,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0363 (finding confusingly similar to DELL); Telstra Corporation Limited v. Ozurls,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0046 (finding confusingly similar to TELSTRA). ...
2011-07-21 - Case Details
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. ...D2004-0117 (a domain name incorporating a well-known trademark combined with a geographic 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).
...
2021-09-29 - Case Details
The consolidated Complainants will hereinafter be referred to as “the Complainant”.
6.2 Substantive Issues
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 domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. ...D2007-0369 (finding the domain name confusingly similar to the trademark ADIPEX-P because they are “pronounced in the same way despite the removal of the dash”). ...
2022-02-07 - Case Details
D2003-0665 (
confusingly similar to the trademark L’TUR), Auchan v. Oushang Chaoshi,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0407 ( confusingly
similar to the trademark AUCHAN), Sanofi-Aventis v. Renars Jeromans, WIPO
Case No. D2005-0705 ( confusingly similar to
the trademark ACOMPLIA).
Taking all the above matters together, the Panel finds that disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and that the Complainant has established the first element of the Policy.
...
2006-11-20 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on October 22, 2010. The disputed domain name is virtually identical / confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trademark AMANSARA.
...D2001-0700, it was held that:
“As numerous courts and prior ICANN panels have recognized, 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. See Paccar Inc. v. Telescan Technologies, L.L.C., 115 F. ...
2011-04-19 - Case Details
Finally, the Complainant submits that in assessing whether a disputed domain
name is confusingly similar to a trade mark the domain extension is disregarded. Therefore, the disputed
domain name is confusingly similar to the trade mark AGFA.
...The Parties
A. Complainant
B. Respondent
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith...
2022-06-15 - Case Details
Other panels have found confusing similarity under similar circumstances. See, e.g., Parfums Christian Dior v. 1 Netpower, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0022 ( and confusingly similar to CHRISTIAN DIOR); Toyota Motor Sales USA v. ...Other panels have found confusing similarity under similar circumstances. See, e.g., Reuters Limited v. Global 2000, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0441. The two other domains that include “www” before a compound term that includes the MASTERCARD trademark is also confusingly similar to MASTERCARD for the same reasons as discussed above.
...
2007-10-19 - Case Details
Here, Respondents have registered eleven domain names that are confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALTAVISTA mark and domain name . A misspelling or typographical variation of a well known mark (such as is the ALTAVISTA mark) is deemed to be "confusingly similar" to the Complainant’s mark in violation of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP. ...The contested domain names are confusingly similar imitations of Complainant’s ALTAVISTA mark which will cause confusion among Internet users. ...
2001-03-07 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel finds
the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the EDMENTUM Mark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant has satisfied 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...
2022-10-18 - Case Details
This domain name is registered with Register.com Inc. under the registrant name Charter Media, Inc., the former corporate name of Briefing.com, Inc.
ii) Respondent’s Domain Name is Confusingly Similar to Complainant’s Marks and Domain Name
Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Marks and domain name in appearance and pronunciation. ...Because Respondent has used its domain name to point Internet users to services substantially similar to Complainant’s services, Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Marks and domain name.
...
2001-09-26 - Case Details
A domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark when it includes the trademark in its entirety, even if one or more generic terms are added in the disputed domain name. ...AAIM,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0403.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant must establish rights in a trademark and secondly that the disputed domain name is identical to or confusingly similar to the trademark in which Complainant has rights.
...
2012-01-18 - Case Details
In sum, the Respondent is engaging in a pattern of conduct in registering domain names which are confusingly similar to widely known trademarks.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s
contentions.
6. ...The combination of the BHP element and the misspelling of BILLITON creates a word that is confusingly similar to both the BHP and the BILLITON trademarks.
The contested domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...
2006-11-15 - Case Details