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.
...The Panel therefore concludes that the Respondent has been given a f...
6.2 Subsitantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-06-30 - Case Details
Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the
language of the proceeding shall be English.
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Discussion and Findings
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-06-30 - Case Details
The entirety of the MIROVA Trademarks is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the
disputed domain name confusingly similar to the MIROVA Trademarks 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...
2024-07-25 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different disputed domain
name registrants (referred to below as “the Respondent”) in a single proceeding.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondents
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-07-17 - Case Details
Taking into account all the relevant circumstances, the Panel determines that the language of proceeding be
English.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Discussion and Findings
A. Language of Proceeding
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-08-06 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the requirement of article 2.1(a) of the Regulations.
...Ye Li
Case No. DNL2024-0021
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith...
2024-06-13 - Case Details
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...
2024-06-28 - Case Details
Thank you”.
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...
2024-07-10 - Case Details
Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the
language of the proceeding shall be English.
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...
2024-07-05 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Since the Complainant has no registered trademark rights, it must establish as a preliminary matter that it
has obtained common law rights, in the nature of unregistered trademark rights, in the name or mark upon
which it relies.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-07-04 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the MIDEA trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
Further, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names. ...Under these circumstances, the Panel finds it more appropriate and fair to render this decision in English.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complaint clearly has trademark rights to MIDEA, and has been using this mark extensively throughout the world. ...
2021-06-23 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name incorporates Complainant’s mark BENEFITFOCUS in its entirety. This is sufficient to establish confusing similarity (Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...D2002-0122).
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the BENEFITFOCUS mark of Complainant.
Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2020-05-01 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Based on article 2.1 of the Regulations, a request to transfer a domain name must meet three cumulative conditions:
(a) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to:
I. a trademark, or trade name, protected under Dutch law in which the complainant has rights; or
II. a personal name registered in the General Municipal Register (“gemeentelijke basisadministratie”) of a municipality in the Netherlands, or the name of a Dutch public legal entity or the name of an association or foundation registered in the Netherlands under which complainant undertakes public activities on a permanent basis; and
(b) respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(c) the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.
...As a result, the Panel is directed to decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of the complaint only.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Article 2.1(a) of the Regulations requires two elements to be proven. A disputed domain name should be (i) identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or tradename (ii) in which a complainant has rights.
...
2020-07-21 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s TMALL trademarks, as it incorporates the TMALL mark in its entirety. ...However, references to the Respondent shall include any actions by the beneficial holder regarding the Domain Name.
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element of a UDRP complaint “functions primarily as a standing requirement” and entails “a straightforward comparison between the complainant’s trademark and the domain name”. ...
2021-06-28 - Case Details
Based on the evidence and arguments submitted, the Panel’s findings are as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has shown that it has valid rights in the mark UNILEVER, based on its intensive use and registration of the same as trademarks in a large number of jurisdictions.
Moreover, as to whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark, the disputed domain name consists of only the Complainant’s registered trademark for UNILEVER, followed by the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), “.shop”. ...
2021-11-02 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel permits this Complaint to proceed in the form in which it was filed.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Once the gTLD “.com” is ignored (which is appropriate in this case), each disputed domain name consists of the whole of the Complainant’s registered word trademark CARVANA, followed by either “markt” or “markts”, which are the German words for “market” and “markets”, respectively. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondents are not licensees of the Complainant, are not otherwise affiliated with the Complainant, and have not been authorized by the Complainant to use its CARVANA word trademark. ...
2021-11-01 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that its registered trademark is prominent and present in its entirety in the disputed domain name, which is therefore confusingly similar to the trademark. The additional dictionary terms “clearance” and “sale” are insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s trademark.
...The dispute is properly within the scope of the Policy and the Panel has jurisdiction to decide the dispute.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has produced evidence satisfactory to the Panel of its ownership of the registered trademark 2XU.
...
2021-04-14 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has provided evidence establishing that it has trademark rights in the MONTE-CARLO mark through registration in Monaco. ...In comparing Complainant’s MONTE-CARLO mark with the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with Complainant’s mark. The disputed domain name contains Complainant’s MONTE-CARLO mark in its entirety. ...
2021-03-02 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in the PROXEED trade mark, based on its various trade mark registrations.
It is well established that in making an enquiry as to whether a trade mark is identical or confusingly similar to a domain name, the Top-Level Domain extension (“.ro” in this case) may be disregarded. ...
2021-03-17 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has provided evidence establishing that it has trademark rights in the DMTG mark through registration in the United Kingdom. ...In comparing Complainant’s DMTG mark with the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with Complainant’s mark. The disputed domain name contains Complainant’s DMTG mark in its entirety. ...
2021-03-15 - Case Details