Complainant
According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademark as it consists of a deliberate misspelling of said trademark followed by the “au” suffix, which is the
abbreviation of Australia. ...Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant owns registered rights over the TETRA PAK mark, which predate the
date of registration of the disputed domain name. ...
2023-02-16 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the mark LOKI through registration demonstrated in the record. The Panel also finds that each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered trademark. The Domain Names incorporate the entire LOKI mark and add the descriptive word “casino” (and in some cases a number). ...
2020-01-27 - Case Details
Therefore, the Panel has decided that the language of the proceeding shall be in English and shall proceed with a decision in English.
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under the first element of the Policy, a complainant must prove that a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights (paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).
...The test for whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark is fairly straight forward and a domain name incorporating the entirety or dominant feature of the relevant mark will normally satisfy the threshold (Britannia Building Society v. ...
2019-12-23 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is not identical to the AMERICAN AIRLINES registered trademarks owned by the
Complainant. ...Therefore, the Panel holds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the AMERICAN
AIRLINES registered trademarks of the Complainant.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has not reacted to any of the Complainant’s contentions. ...
2023-02-27 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant submits that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its earlier AMEGY and AMEGY
BANK trademarks. The Complainant’s earlier registered trademark AMEGY is included in its entirety and is
recognizable within the Domain Name, as is the dominant and distinctive component of the AMEGY BANK
trademarks. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has proved that it has registered trademark rights in AMEGY and AMEGY BANK. ...
2022-11-21 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the trademark PROMINENCE HEALTH PLAN through
registration demonstrated in the record. The Panel also concludes that the Domain Name is confusingly
similar to that mark. The omission of the word “plan” does not prevent the mark from being recognizable in
the Domain Name, since the dominant portion of the mark – PROMINENCE HEALTH – is entirely
reproduced in the Domain Name.
...
2023-01-13 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Trade Mark, the
Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, and the
disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
...Substantive Elements of the Policy
The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use and registration.
...
2023-01-12 - Case Details
Complainant
According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks as it fully incorporates the Complainant’s HERTZ mark, followed by the non-distinctive terms “rent a car”, which refer to the Complainant’s activity.
...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s trademarks HERTZ and HERTZ RENT‑A‑CAR, both of which are clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name. ...
2021-08-09 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark OTIS. Indeed, the disputed domain name fully incorporates its famous mark OTIS surrounded by descriptive wording. ...Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant owns various trademark registrations for the mark OTIS.
The disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety with no alteration and combines this trademark with the term “us”, which may easily be recognized as a geographical descriptive term for the United States, and with the term “elevator”.
...
2021-08-13 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has proved its rights over the PHARMAZELL trademark.
The disputed domain name consists of the obvious misspelling of the PHARMAZELL trademark of the Complainant, with the removal of the second letter “a” in the disputed domain name. ...It is well accepted by UDRP panels that a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), such as “.com”, is typically ignored when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusing similar to a trademark. See section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.
This Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and therefore finds that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2021-07-29 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant alleges that each of the five disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its LEGO trademark, containing its LEGO trademark in its entirety, with the mere addition of a descriptive or non-distinctive element, namely the geographical abbreviations “au”, “ca”, “”eu”, and “uk” respectively, and the word “kids”.
...Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements that the Complainant must prove to merit a finding that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant:
(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 in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2021-07-27 - Case Details
However, the Complainant includes part of what appears to be part of the home page of that website, which prominently displays the Complainant’s PLAYSTATION trade mark and associated logo, and displays pictures of the Complainant’s “PS4” products.
5.4 The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its registered trade marks and that the way that the Domain Name has been used demonstrates that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that the Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.4 The Complainant has satisfied the Panel that it has registered trade mark rights for the term “Playstation” in the form, inter alia, of a stylised word mark. ...
2021-04-27 - Case Details
D2020-2030 (the “Prior Case”), the Complainant was successful in obtaining the transfer of several other domain names (which included the trademark IBM) from the same Respondent, based on underlying facts similar to this case.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...The Panel finds that the Complainant has established all three of these elements.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
A registered trademark provides a clear indication that the rights in the mark shown on the trademark certificate belong to its respective owner. ...
2021-04-26 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy 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...
2025-12-09 - 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...
2025-02-21 - 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...
2024-09-17 - Case Details
According to
several UDRP panels, when a domain name wholly includes the entirety of a trademark, it is typically
considered confusingly similar.
Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the
Domain Name. ...Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-10-16 - Case Details
Accordingly, these two disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Mark for the purposes of the
Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-11-05 - Case Details
Despite the Complainant’s multiple replies to this informal
communication, requesting the Respondent’s cooperation via the Rules’ provisions for settlement under
paragraph 17(a), the Respondent did not reply.
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...
2024-08-06 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Further, previous UDRP panels have found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or
confusingly similar to a widely known trademark can, by itself, constitute a presumption of bad faith for the
purpose of Policy. ...
2024-12-18 - Case Details