Complainant
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s QVAR
trademark. The disputed domain name reproduces in full Complainant’s QVAR mark, with the sole addition
of the country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) identifier “.co”, assigned to Colombia.
...Thus, the Panel concludes that
Respondent is currently using the confusingly similar disputed domain name with the intention to attract, for
commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website.
...
2022-06-21 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There are two parts to the inquiry under this element of the Policy. The Complainant must first demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark and secondly that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to such trademark.
...In these circumstances, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights and accordingly that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy have been satisfied.
...
2018-07-04 - Case Details
In the interests of ensuring that both parties are given a fair opportunity to present their respective cases, the Panel also admits the supplemental response into the record.
B. 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.
There are two parts to this inquiry: the Complainant must demonstrate that at the date the Complaint was filed, it has rights in a trademark and, if so, the disputed domain name must be shown to be identical or confusingly similar to the trademark.
The Complainant has proven ownership of the registered trademark FOMO GAMES in a stylised form.
...
2021-01-21 - Case Details
The Respondent makes the following submissions:
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complaint does not specifically address the first element of the Policy.
The Complainant has no registered trade mark rights.
...Having said this, the supplemental filings were mostly irrelevant and carried little weight.
6.2. Substantial Issues
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2020-07-21 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that it is established in prior UDRP decisions that the addition of descriptive or generic indications to a third party trademark does not avoid a disputed domain name being confusingly similar to a third party trademark, and the disputed domain name is therefore, confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademarks.
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
There is no evidence that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...
2020-06-04 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the “Equitrekking Domain Names”, and , are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant Newman’s registered EQUITREKKING trademark. They contend that the “Darley Newman Domain Names”, , , and , are identical or confusingly similar to their common law marks DARLEY NEWMAN and TRAVELS WITH DARLEY, “which have acquired distinctiveness insofar as the names are used in connection with entertainment services related to an ongoing television program entitled TRAVELS WITH DARLEY based on Newman’s world travel experiences”.
...The Domain Names and are identical or confusingly similar to the DARLEY NEWMAN mark, as the Domain Name is to the TRAVELS WITH DARLEY mark, in each instance discounting the spaces that cannot be replicated in a DNS address. ...
2020-07-13 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are all confusingly similar to Complainant’s FAT
FACE trademark. All disputed domain names reproduce the FAT FACE mark in full, with the addition of
a term relating to commerce (Annex 1 to the Complaint). ...Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondents are currently using confusingly similar disputed domain names
with the intention to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondents’ websites by creating a
likelihood of confusion with Complainant. ...
2024-01-17 - Case Details
The Panel finds
that the L’ORÉAL trademark is recognizable within the Disputed Domain Names. Accordingly, the Disputed
Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
...Consolidation
B. Language of the Proceeding
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
D. Rights or Legitimate Interests
E. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-12-04 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Discussion and Findings
(iii) that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-07-10 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Discussion and Findings
(iii) that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-05-08 - 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...
2025-09-29 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends:
I.Identical or Confusingly Similar
That by virtue of its trademark registrations, it holds exclusive rights to the MOULIN ROUGE trademarks.
...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...
2025-10-02 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Accordingly, one
of the disputed domain names is identical (i.e., ) and the other one is confusingly similar
(i.e., ) to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
...
2025-01-31 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights over the trademark BAYER based on the
trademark registrations cited under section 4 above and the related trademark registration details submitted
as annex 7 to the Complaint.
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the disputed domain names are confusingly
similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has established rights according to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the
Policy.
...
2023-02-28 - Case Details
However, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s default.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is required to establish the following: (i) that it has trademark rights, and, if so, (ii) that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark.
...On the basis of the foregoing findings, and according to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MANULIFE trademark, and the first element of the Policy is established.
...
2021-09-23 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There are two parts to the first element inquiry under the Policy. The Complainant must first demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark. ...In all of the above circumstances, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in a mark and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to such mark. The requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy have therefore been satisfied.
...
2021-04-20 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Discussion and Findings
6.1 Procedural Issues
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
7. ...
2024-10-09 - Case Details
They submit that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the
NEEDESSENTIALS trademark, because they both contain it with the addition of “uk” or “eu”, which does not
prevent them from being confusingly similar to the NEEDESSENTIALS trademark.
...On February 12, 2024, the First Comp...
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith...
2024-06-27 - Case Details
Complainants
Complainants contend that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks in which Complainants have rights. It incorporates the ROTHSCHILD mark and MARTIN MAUREL mark in their entirely and without any variation or addition.
...b) Used in Bad Faith
Complainants have adduced evidence to prove that by using the confusingly similar disputed domain name, Respondent has “intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s websites”.
...
2017-02-01 - Case Details
Michael Robertson,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0009).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There are two parts to the inquiry under the first element of the Policy. The Complainant must first demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark and secondly that the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to such trademark.
...In these circumstances, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Trademarks and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy have been satisfied.
...
2016-02-01 - Case Details