The Panel can rule in a complainant’s favor only after the complainant has proven that the above-listed elements are present.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant is required to establish that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. ...Such a combination, however, does not prevent a finding that the Domain Name in issue is confusingly similar to these marks. Accordingly based on the uncontested evidence submitted by the Complainant establishing its ownership and rights in the marks, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks and that paragraph 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
...
2005-12-01 - Case Details
Respondent nevertheless contends that the Domain Name is not confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark because Complainant uses only ESSQUEHOTELS, and not ESSQUE. ...D2007-1764 (finding that the domain name was confusingly similar to the mark SHERATON).
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Although Respondent claims that he has rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name , on the record submitted to this Panel, that claim is not credible. ...
2009-03-18 - Case Details
The rapid growth of Complainant's advertising supports the inference that nine years ago (in 2001) the level of international advertising and scope of secondary association globally was fairly limited.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Respondent has not contested the assertions by Complainant that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark.
...The addition of other terms in the domain name does not affect a finding that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant's registered trademark.
In this case, the Disputed Domain Name incorporates entirely the INTERMESH Mark. ...
2010-03-24 - Case Details
Confusing Similarity
Arguing that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s VSNL trademark, the Complainant asserts that the domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark, service mark and trading style VSNL and is hence confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. ...This Panel accepts the Complainant’s submissions that the domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark, service mark and trading style VSNL and is hence confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The element of the domain name consisting of the letters “VSNL” is identical to the Complainant’s trademark.
...
2007-07-17 - Case Details
The Panel has also provided the Respondent with an opportunity to file a supplementary filing in response to the Complainant’s supplemental filing and has considered the Respondent’s supplemental filing of August 9, 2012.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element the Complainant must have trade or service mark rights and the Domain Name must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade or service mark.
...The Domain Name consists of the HOLIDAY INN Mark and a prefix that fails to distinguish the HOLIDAY INN Mark. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s HOLIDAY INN Mark. Consequently, the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2012-08-14 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant’s CORADIA trademark is wholly and identically contained in the disputed domain name along with the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), “.com”. ...In all of these circumstances, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CORADIA mark and accordingly holds the first element under the Policy to be established.
...
2021-03-10 - Case Details
The
Respondent's awareness is also ascertained by the Respondent's registration of
several multilingual domain names which are identical and/or confusingly
similar to the well known trade names and registered trademarks of
pharmaceutical companies.
...Furthermore, the
Respondent has not contested that the domain name <三共.com> is identical
to or confusingly similar with the Complainant's trademark.
Respondent’s rights or
legitimate interests in the domain name
It is not contested that the Complainant has not authorized the
Respondent to use the trademark "三共".
...
2001-07-09 - Case Details
The Respondent's
awareness is also ascertained by the Respondent's registration of several multilingual
domain names which are identical and/or confusingly similar to the well known trade
names and registered trademarks of pharmaceutical companies.
...Furthermore, the Respondent has not contested that the domain name
<三共.com> is identical to or confusingly similar with the Complainant's trademark.
Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the domain name
It is not contested that the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use the
trademark "三共". ...
2001-07-09 - Case Details
The three elements can be summarized as follows:
(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 the Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith.
...The full Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark TOEIC. This is consistent with Respondent's understanding and intended use of the Domain Name.
6.7 The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied its burden regarding Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2000-04-07 - Case Details
Complainant also has satisfied its burden of proving that the domain name plazahotel.com
is confusingly similar to the mark THE PLAZA HOTEL. The only difference between
the domain name (not including the ".com" gTLD) and the mark is the
word "the." There thus can be no dispute but that the domain name
is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
2. Respondent Has No Legitimate Interest in the Domain Name.
...
2000-06-06 - Case Details
Consequently, this Panel shall not evaluate in this decision the registration and use by the Respondent of the domain name .
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to the Policy, the first circumstance that must be proven by the Complainant is that the Domain Name may be considered as identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
...Therefore, the Panel considers that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the “RCA” trademarks owned by the Complainants. Consequently, the condition set out by paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been met by the Complainants.
...
2005-05-23 - Case Details
In the circumstances of this case, the only relevant law is that of the UK.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar to Trademark in which Complainant has Rights
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has registered rights in the logo comprising the words BRITISH MEAT in white capital letters over red and blue bands. ...The Panel is not satisfied on the evidence as a whole that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to any marks in which the Complainant has rights. Given that the term "British meat" is the normal and natural term to describe meat produced in Britain, the Panel is not satisfied that the Domain Names would be regarded by Internet users as indicating a website of the Complainant.
...
2003-11-04 - Case Details
Further, the Respondent maintains that most if not all of the Complainant's resellers engage in similar usages and practices regarding the Complainant's WEBSITE TONIGHT mark, including but not limited to confusingly similar domain names. ...The critical inquiry under the first element of the Policy is whether the mark and domain name, when directly compared, are identical or confusingly similar. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0662. ...
2009-04-01 - Case Details
Another member of the Rothschild Group, Rothschild Bank AG, has registered the domain name . The Domain Name is therefore confusingly similar to the ROTHSCHILD trademarks.
(ii) The Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the Domain Name. ...Accordingly, the Trademark and the Domain Name are not identical. The question is therefore whether they are confusingly similar. The Complainant uses the Trademark in relation to its banking and allied financial services. ...
2001-10-08 - Case Details
The disputed domain names are, according to the Complainant, confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks, creating a likelihood of confusion given the reproduction of its trademarks which are clearly recognizable as the leading element of the disputed domain names, not adding any distinctiveness thereto the addition of the descriptive terms “follow”, “followers”, “for”, “plus” and “learn”.
...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 its rights in the IG, INSTA and INSTAGRAM trademarks (Annex 10 to the Complaint).
...
2021-02-16 - Case Details
Those elements are that:
(i) the disputed domain name is 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 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 Complainant has established that it is the owner of registered trademark rights for the mark FORZA. ...
2023-07-27 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant states that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its trademark
WHATSAPP, as they are visually and phonetically similar to the latter.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2025-07-03 - Case Details
Under these circumstances, given also that the information presented by the Complainant is publicly available and considering the general powers of a panel articulated inter alia in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the Rules, according to which a panel may undertake limited factual research into matters of public record if it would consider such information useful to assessing the case merits and reaching a decision, the Panel will not allow the additional filings by the Complainant.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant must establish that it has a trademark or service mark and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark or service mark for the Complainant to succeed.
...Numerous prior UDRP decisions have recognized that incorporating a trademark in its entirety can be sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark. See, Aldermore Bank Plc v. Hildegard Gruener,
WIPO Case No. ...
2019-03-14 - Case Details
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed Complainant must satisfy the Panel that:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
A national or international trademark registration is prima facie evidence that the holder has the requisite rights in the registered mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...
2021-10-12 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is also confusingly similar to the Complainant's INSTAGRAM trade mark, in that the disputed domain name leads with the element "ingram" – a misspelling of the Complainant's INSTAGRAM trade mark, simply omitting the letters "sta". ...In the affirming circumstances, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s INSTAGRAM trade mark registration.
As a result, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s INSTAGRAM mark and that the Complaint succeeds under this element of the Policy.
...
2021-10-12 - Case Details