The Domain Name incorporates Complainant’s CITIUSTECH Mark in its entirety.
Accordingly, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Mark 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...
2025-11-14 - Case Details
The first element of the UDRP requires the trademark to be identical or confusingly similar to the disputed
domain name, irrespective of where the Complainant’s trademark may be registered. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-11-06 - Case Details
The content of the new website
hosted at the disputed domain name related to online gambling.
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...
2026-06-01 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated it owns registered trademark rights in the famous IBM mark. ...page 4
The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed
domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview of WIPO
Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. ...
2026-06-09 - Case Details
The Panel finds as follows.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has duly shown its registered rights to the ONLYFANS marks in multiple jurisdictions. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademarks, so the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is established.
...
2026-01-13 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated rights through registration and use on the VALTECH mark.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the VALTECH trademark of Complainant.
The Domain Name incorporates the trademark of Complainant in its entirety. ...
2018-05-30 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant makes the following contentions:
(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s FERRING Mark;
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or any legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element the Complainant must have trade or service mark rights and the Domain Name must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade or service mark.
...
2021-03-05 - Case Details
Having considered the Parties’ contentions, the Policy, the Rules, the Supplemental Rules and applicable law, the Panel’s findings on each of the above-mentioned elements are the following.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s SAINT-GOBAIN trademark combined with the French dictionary word “recherche” which stands for “research”.
As stated in the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7: “In cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing”.
The Complainant’s trademark is fully included and clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name.
...
2021-03-03 - Case Details
Öckeröborgen IT AB,
WIPO Case No. D2017-1354.
The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. Due to the Respondent’s replacement of the letter “a” at the end of the Disputed Domain Name with the letter “ee”.
...The Panel finds that the Complainant has met its burden of proof and has established that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights. See, Wachovia Corporation v. Peter Carrington,
WIPO Case No. ...
2020-08-18 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s non-generic/-descriptive, famous and throughout the world well-known registered trademark BASF since it entirely contains this trademark and only add the term “agrega” together with a hyphen.
...
2020-07-13 - Case Details
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...
2026-03-04 - Case Details
page 4
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, and C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-02-27 - Case Details
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 f irst 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...
2026-02-12 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to divest the Respondent of a disputed domain name, the
Complainant must demonstrate each of the following:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which
the Complainant has rights;
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules directs the Panel to decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and
documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that
it deems applicable.
page 3
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element that the Complainant must establish is that the disputed domain name is identical with, or
confusingly similar to, the Complainant's trademark rights.
...
2026-03-16 - Case Details
page 3
The Panel therefore concludes that the Respondent has been given a fair opportunity to present his case,
and so that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition the Panel will proceed to a
Decision accordingly.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the f irst 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...
2026-04-10 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it owns registered trade mark rights in the BITFURY mark, in particular, European Union trade mark No. 012966958 registered on December 08, 2014. ...As a result, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered BITFURY trade mark and the Complainant therefore succeeds under the first element of the Policy.
...
2019-07-25 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that a complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) that the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
(ii) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...At the same time, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, if a party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any provision of, or requirement under, the Rules, or any request from the Panel, the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar (in the sense of the Policy) to the Complainant’s registered ALLEN & OVERY Marks. ...
2020-06-05 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant submits that it owns registered trade mark rights as set out above for its ASENDIA trade mark. It says that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its ASENDIA registered trade mark in that the substantive element of the disputed domain name, before the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) “.com” element, differs by only one letter. ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is therefore confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ASENDIA mark and that the Complaint succeeds under this element of the Policy.
...
2021-01-18 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered SKYSCANNER trademarks. The Complainant is the owner of various word and figurative trademark registrations throughout the world which contain the word “skyscanner”; the trademarks are registered mostly for the service classes 35, 38, and 39 but also for the classes 9, 42 and 43.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name almost entirely incorporates and reproduces the Complainant’s wordmark SKYSCANNER; the disputed domain name only differs from the Complainant’s distinctive trademarks inasmuch as it omits the letter “n” and contains an additional “s”. ...
2019-10-03 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the IQOS trademark, that
the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and that the
disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights in the IQOS trademark.
The disputed domain name entirely consists of the Complainant’s trademark IQOS in combination with the
geographical term “Iran” as well as the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. ...
2023-02-16 - Case Details