Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name also constitutes a disruption of Complainant’s business and qualifies as bad faith registration and use because the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks and Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name to offer competing services. ...Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated it owns the registered trademark rights in the globally famous FORBES trademark in the United States and throughout the world. ...
2021-12-08 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its AA trademark, because it incorporates such mark entirely, and the addition of the term “prefunds” fails to avoid confusing similarity.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant owns various trademark registrations for the mark AA.
The disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety with no alteration and combines this trademark with the term “prefunds”.
...
2021-11-26 - 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...
2024-06-07 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...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 3.0,
section 1.7.
...
2024-06-13 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to its trademarks COPAXONE and PROAIR, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. ...Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant can only succeed in an administrative proceeding under the Policy if the following circumstances are met:
(i) the disputed domain names are 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 the disputed domain names; and
(iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
...
2022-02-23 - Case Details
It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, where appropriate, will
decide consistently with the consensus views stated therein.
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...
2025-05-16 - 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...
2025-05-13 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements, which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the
Domain Name:
(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which
Complainant has rights; and
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
page 3
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2023-11-06 - Case Details
D2017-1373), and the
disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its brand, being a case of typosquatting. The Respondent
has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, as the Complainant has not
licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use a deceptively similar trademark to its brand. ...The Panel has authority to decide the dispute examining the three elements
in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, taking into consideration all of the relevant evidence, annexed material and
allegations, and performing some limited independent research under the general powers of the Panel
articulated, inter alia, in paragraph 10 of the Rules.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2023-11-27 - Case Details
page 3
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...
2023-11-21 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant made the following contentions to establish that the disputed domain name is confusingly
similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The disputed domain name adopts the
Complainant’s HEETS Trademark. ...Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Once the gTLD “.info” is ignored (which is appropriate in this case), the disputed domain name consists of
the Complainant’s registered HEETS Trademark, preceded by the word “vape” and followed by the letters
“uae”. ...
2022-09-19 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the trademark LENDUS through registration and use
demonstrated in the record. The Panel also concludes that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the
LENDUS mark. The entire mark is incorporated within the Domain Name, and the additional word “at” does
not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the mark and the Domain Name.
...
2022-05-10 - Case Details
The Panel will further analyze the potential concurrence of the above circumstances.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark exactly.
...Furthermore, it was consistently found by previous UDRP panels that the mere registration of a domain
name that is identical or confusingly similar to a third party’s well-known trademark can by itself create a
presumption of bad faith for the purpose of Policy. ...
2022-06-08 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar or identical to the Trade Mark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...In all the circumstances, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English.
6.2 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 which incidentally predate the date of registration of the disputed domain name.
...
2017-01-09 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has rights in the registered trademark MITTAL. The Domain Name incorporates this distinctive mark and adds the generic word “investment”. The Panel concludes that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the MITTAL mark. The word “investment” could reasonably be understood as being related to Complainant, a major international corporation which, in addition to its core steel production operation, doubtless makes or considers investments in other ventures or securities.
...
2016-08-01 - Case Details
In accordance with article 10.3 of the Regulations, the Complaint shall in that event be granted, unless the Panel considers it to be without basis in law or fact.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has shown that it has rights in the Trade Marks.
The Trade Marks consist of or contain the name “HVG”, which is incorporated in its entirety in the Domain Name. The addition of the words “werken bij” does not change the overall impression that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trade Marks. Although the Complainant does not give a translation of these words in the Complaint, they are indeed descriptive, meaning “working at”.
...
2016-01-22 - Case Details
The Respondent raises no arguments against consolidation (indeed, he has made no arguments at all), and the Panel finds that the Respondent will not suffer any prejudice from consolidation.
6.2 Substantive Issues
To succeed, the Complainants must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied:
(i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainants have rights;
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and
(iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
The Panel finds that all three elements have been met in this case.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There are two parts to the inquiry under the first element of the Policy. The Complainants must first demonstrate that they have rights in a trademark, and secondly, must demonstrate that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to such trademark.
...
2016-01-15 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has been able to demonstrate that it has rights to the trademark AUTOCAD. ...For the above-cited reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and therefore the condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is fulfilled.
...
2015-10-27 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends as follows:
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights. The disputed domain name incorporates the LANVIN trademark in its entirety. ...Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has submitted ample evidence of its registrations for the mark LANVIN in various jurisdictions. ...
2020-02-21 - Case Details
It therefore submits that the disputed domain name is therefore confusingly similar to its STATOIL mark.
The Complainant further submits that it has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its trade mark. ...As a result the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered STATOIL trade mark and that the Complaint succeeds under this element of the Policy.
...
2017-02-14 - Case Details