The majority of the Panel finds as follows on these elements.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Respondent does not dispute that Complainant owns trademark rights in the mark ORANGE BOWL. ...Accordingly, we conclude that the remaining domain name at issue is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights under Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
B. ...
2005-02-09 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant has prior rights in the CLOUDFM mark by way of registered and unregistered rights. ...Complainant’s reply to Procedural Order
In summary, the Complainant contends as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The Respondent has not disputed the fact that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. ...
2021-12-29 - Case Details
Accordingly, the domain name can properly form part of the subject matter of the present proceeding.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.31 The test of "confusing similarity" under the Policy has tended to be interpreted by panels as imposing a low threshold standing requirement (see paragraph 1.2 of the WIPO Overview 2.0). It is an approach that means that where a domain name incorporates in its entirety any trade mark relied upon, it will usually lead to a finding that the domain name is "confusingly similar" to that mark, although each case has to be decided on its particular facts (see Research in Motion Limited v. ...
2013-10-17 - Case Details
He says that this history shows a business with goodwill, and that this is sufficient to prevent a business that is located a very short distance away from him from adopting the very similar name “Sussex Motorbikes”, and that such a name is confusingly similar to his trading name and is leading to actual confusion. ...Such an attempt to take advantage of the Complainant’s reputation by adoption of a confusingly similar name amounts to bad faith.
- The Panel also takes into account the two telephone calls placed in evidence by the Complainant. ...
2015-03-10 - Case Details
For a thorough review of the case, the Panel hereby decides to additionally review the Supplemental Filings of both parties, alongside with their replies to Procedural Order No.1.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is required to establish the two following elements: (i) that it has trademark rights, and, if so, (ii) that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark.
...Based on the foregoing findings, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks, and paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is established.
...
2021-09-01 - Case Details
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 6
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element that the Complainants must establish is that each disputed domain name is identical with,
or confusingly similar to, trademark rights of one of the Complainants.
...As the Complainants have not established the second disputed domain name is identical with or confusingly
similar to their trademarks, the Complaint in respect of the second disputed domain name must fail.
...
2022-11-17 - Case Details
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules requires the panel to:
“… decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any Rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE mark, registered in the United States of America.
...If the respondent fails to do so, a complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4 (a)(ii) of the UDRP”.
In this case, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE mark, and the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use that mark (or any expression confusingly similar to it), whether in a domain name or otherwise. ...
2010-11-29 - Case Details
The Complainant is anyway not prejudiced to file a new complaint concerning this additional domain name.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires that the Complainant demonstrates that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven the disputed domain names , and are confusingly similar to the trademarks SBO and SBOBET in which it has rights.
The Panel therefore finds that the first requirement under 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...
2014-08-13 - Case Details
Identity/confusing similarity
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to trademark registrations 478857, 604142 and 698252 and is likely to cause confusion regarding the mark TIANGUIS TURISTICO MEXICO.
...For the same reason, the Panel finds the disputed domain
name is not confusingly similar to any of those marks. Complainant has not established
this element of its case with respect to those marks.
...
2004-08-09 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a Complainant must prove each of the following elements with
respect to the disputed domain name in order to succeed in this proceeding:
(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the
Complainant has rights; and
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided evidence of registration of its 3SHAPE trademark. It has provided evidence
of extensive use of its 3SHAPE trademark and trademarked products, as well as demonstrating that it enjoys
a strong reputation in this mark.
...
2022-03-23 - Case Details
Complainant
In the Complaint, the Complainant contends as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant has established substantial goodwill and reputation in, and has become exclusively associated with the MA’ADEN mark worldwide. ...The Respondent was not entitled to close its eyes to whether the disputed domain name was identical or confusingly similar to third party trademark rights. The Respondent made no good faith efforts to avoid registering and using a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to marks held by others. ...
2022-02-16 - Case Details
Incorporating a trademark in its entirety can be sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar.
The Respondent willfully adopted the GILEAD name within the Domain Name in an attempt to unfairly capitalize on the valuable goodwill the Complainant has built in its mark, with the likely intention of confusing consumers, diverting traffic and possibly embarking on phishing activities.
...A complainant must prove each of these three elements to succeed.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant clearly has rights in its GILEAD mark.
Ignoring the gTLD “.health” (as the Panel may do for comparison purposes), the Domain Name consists only of the GILEAD mark and nothing more.
...
2020-05-28 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends as follows:
(1) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s REMY MARTIN trade mark. The Domain Name incorporates the trade mark. ...B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established that it has rights to the REMY MARTIN trade mark.
...
2013-10-02 - Case Details
Respondent had knowledge that the Domain Name was confusingly similar to the Marks and name of Complainant.
· The bad faith that Respondent has shown gets worse from the perspective that the Domain Name differs from the Marks and name in just a letter "s". ...Decision
The Panel has found that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks and domain name of the Complainant, and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in said domain name. ...
2004-05-24 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, Complainant bears the burden of proving that:
(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.
...The failure of Complainant to prove any one of them means the Complaint must be denied.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The COOLMATH and COOLMATH-GAMES trademarks comprise dictionary words. Complainant's use of those words in combination, however, has conferred on each sign sufficient distinctiveness that they have been deemed registrable as trademarks in the United States. ...
2016-11-22 - Case Details
As a consequence the Complainant submits that the disputed domain names are all confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SEIKO word mark.
The Complainant submits that its SEIKO mark is extremely well known around the world both in relation to watches and to a broader range of products. ...For these reasons the Panel finds that each of the 138 disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SEIKO mark and that the Complaint succeeds in relation to the first element of the Policy.
...
2013-08-21 - Case Details
As at the date of this Decision, the disputed domain name redirected to the domain name
displaying similar content as was published on the Website.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade
Mark; the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and the
disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Discussion and Findings
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.
Disregarding the generic Top-Level Domain “.bet”, the disputed domain name is identical to the Trade Mark.
...
2023-08-30 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trade marks.
The Complainant further claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the
disputed domain name. ...Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that, in order to obtain the transfer of the disputed domain name the
Complainant must prove:
(i) the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a name,
trade mark 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 or has subsequently been used in bad faith.
...
2025-11-06 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
In order for the Complainant to obtain a transfer of the disputed domain name, paragraphs 4(a)(i) – (iii) of the Policy require that the Complainant must demonstrate to the Panel 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 in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name incorporates the trademark of the Complainant in its entirety and differs from the trademark of the Complainant only in the addition of the “.store” Top-Level Domain. ...
2018-11-30 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is virtually identical to the petitioner’s 888SPORT trademark and confusingly similar to its 888 trademark, since the “888” element constitutes the prominent portion of the disputed domain name.
...Discussion and Findings
A. The Domain Name is identical or similar to a name which is legally recognized in Sweden and to which the Petitioner can prove its rights
The Arbitrator finds that the disputed domain name <888sport.se> is identical to the Petitioner’s trademark 888SPORT and confusingly similar to the Petitioner’s trademark 888, both trademarks being legally recognized in Sweden and to which the Petitioner can prove its rights (see Section 7.2.1 of the .se Policy).
...
2018-11-09 - Case Details