Respondent
5.5 The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.1 It is generally 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...
2025-01-20 - Case Details
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...
2025-01-22 - Case Details
The entirety of the GENTLE MONSTER trade mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name.
Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the GENTLE MONSTER trade mark for the
purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
...The Respondent has essentially stated that ...
6.2 Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-04-02 - Case Details
case=D2020-0592
page 4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark (the Complainant’s Trademark) for the
purposes of the Policy. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered or Is Being Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-02-13 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the EPIK trademark. The Disputed Domain Name is identical to that
trademark. It is well established that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), in this case “.hosting”, is not
generally taken into account for the purpose of determining whether a domain name is identical or
confusingly similar – see for example Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, WIPO Case No. D2000-0429. See
also WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview
3.0”), section 1.11.
...
2024-08-15 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Under the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove on the balance of probabilities that:
(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.
...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.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-08-14 - Case Details
Having to ensure that the proceeding takes place with due expedition, the Panel determines
under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English.
6.2. Substantive Assessment
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 Assessment
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-11-01 - Case Details
Notably, Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the GRAZIA Mark because
the Mark is reproduced identically in the Domain Name and adding the term “japan” will be understood as
referencing the country and Complainant’s website in Japan. ...Respondent
Respondent did not reply to 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. ...
2025-07-09 - Case Details
See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected
UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.11.2.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the
Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. ...Procedural matters - Consolidation of Multiple Registrants
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-11-06 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.4 The Complainant has satisfied the Panel that it has registered trade mark rights in the term
“copaxone” in a number of jurisdictions including the European Union and the United States. ...The Panel also agrees with the Complainant that the
addition of the words “pharmacy” and “online” in the domain name does not prevent a finding of
confusion similarity.
6.6 The Complainant has, therefore, demonstrated that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trade
mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights and has, thereby, made out the
requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2023-05-08 - Case Details
This is also an issue that parties, the Center, the Registrar and/or any future
panel may wish to consider further in any similar case in future in light of the comments of the Panel in
this decision.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.9 The Complainant has satisfied the Panel that it has extensive registered trade mark rights in RIPIO.
...Therefore, both the RIPIO and RIPIO SELECT
marks of the Complainant are clearly recognisable in the Domain Name.
6.11 The Complainant has, therefore, satisfied the Panel that the Domain Name is at least confusingly
similar to more than one trade mark in which it has rights and it has thereby made out the
requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2023-03-03 - Case Details
This Panel is satisfied, in view of the evidence submitted and on balance that the disputed domain names are indeed subject to a common control and that consolidation would be fair and equitable to all Parties.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights over the PIKOLINOS trademark duly registered.
...For the reasons above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a non-exclusive list of circumstances that may indicate the Respondents’ rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. ...
2022-02-18 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent did not reply to 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...
2023-10-09 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in registered trademarks consisting of the word SELFRIDGES.
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant has satisfied the first element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2015-12-02 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asks for the transfer of the disputed domain names on the grounds that each of those disputed domain names is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of those domain names and that the Respondent registered and is using those domain names in bad faith.
...In the administrative proceeding, the complainant must prove that each of these three elements are present.”
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the first element is present.
The Complainant is the registered proprietor of the BAYER word mark which is registered with the US Patent and Trademark Office as trade mark number 1482868. ...
2017-12-28 - Case Details
Complainant
The disputed domain names are identical and/or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark.
The disputed domain names incorporate the Complainant’s trade mark. ...See paragraph 4.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”).
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the mark AMERICANEAGLE.COM by virtue of its registered trade mark for that term.
...
2016-05-18 - Case Details
Complainant
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade marks
The Complainant provides details of its ownership of a number of its registered trade marks for CREDIT MUTUEL, as set out above.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it has rights, arising from its trade mark registrations for CREDIT MUTUEL. ...
2017-02-15 - Case Details
These are addressed in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has rights to the DATAMATICS mark, and that the disputed domain name is nearly identical and confusingly similar to that mark.
...Purple Bucquet,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0722 for a similar holding.
In accordance with these UDRP decisions, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name is nearly identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark. ...
2017-02-03 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends as follows:
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ACCENTURE mark, in that it incorporates, in its entirety, Complainant's well-known ACCENTURE mark and simply combines this mark with the ORACLE mark. ...Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
By submitting copies of registration certificates and printouts of the USPTO database, Complainant has proved to the satisfaction of the Panel that it has trademark rights in the ACCENTURE mark. ...
2017-09-19 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the MORELLATO trade mark, the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain names, and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. ...Therefore, the Panel finds the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's MORELLATO trade mark. Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2018-10-01 - Case Details