Complainant
The Complainant contends that it has rights in the trademark GEOPOST and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar and in fact identical to that trademark.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. ...The dispute is properly within the scope of the Policy and the Panel has jurisdiction to decide the dispute.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant must prove that it has rights in a mark and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to that mark.
...
2008-04-09 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided evidence of trademark rights in the SAPO trademark.
The Panel shares the view held in American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico v. ...In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2009-01-21 - Case Details
In support of this assertion, the Complaint states that the Respondent has registered the disputed names because they are identical and/or confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks in order to attract visitors otherwise intending to visit Complainant’s website. ...D2000-553
6.2 The Panel turns next to the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy which the Complainant must prove in order to obtain relief.
6.3 Domain names identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.
With respect to the domain name "wral-tv5.com", the Panel finds that this is identical to the mark "WRAL-TV5" owned by the Complainant. ...
2001-01-29 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant mainly submits the following:
(i) The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark "CLUB MED"; the said domain name is also identical or confusingly similar to the "CLUB MEDITERRANEE" mark.
...Like in WIPO Case D2000-1350 cited above, the Sole Panelist considers here that "clubmed.net" is also confusingly similar to the CLUB MEDITERRANEE" mark since people in the public are likely to associate it with the trademark.
...
2001-02-02 - Case Details
D2000-0104, the Panel concluded that the domain name eautomotive.com
was confusingly similar to the trademark EAUTO, because the domain name incorporated
in its entirety a registered trademark which was entitled to a rebuttable presumption
of distinctiveness. ...Decision
The Administrative Panel finds that the domain name catmachines.com is confusingly similar to the trademarks CAT and CATERPILLAR of the Complainant, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name and that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2000-05-26 - Case Details
You are required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that a third party (a "complainant") asserts to the applicable Provider, in compliance with the Rules of Procedure, that
(i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...In addition, the Administrative Panel finds that these domain names are confusingly similar to those trademark registrations.
Respondent’s Rights or Legitimate Interests in the Domain Names
7.4 The Respondent has not filed any response in this case. ...
2001-09-28 - Case Details
Identity or Confusing Similarity
Complainant contends that the domain name at issue is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks, the only difference being the collocation of the letters "a" and "e". ...Identity or Confusing Similarity
In this respect, Complainant has, according to Paragraph 4a(i) of the Policy, to prove that the domain name at issue is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark in which Complainant has rights.
The domain name at issue is "www.kvearner.com".
...
2001-04-02 - Case Details
Domain name is identical
or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant
has rights
As set out above, the Complainant
is the registered proprietor of the trademark FORTUM in the European Union.
...The Panel finds that the
domain name is identical to the Complainant’s registered
trademark FORTUM and it is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s device mark
"FORTUM".
No legitimate rights or
interest in the disputed domain name
The Policy outlines (paragraph
4(c)) circumstances which, if found by the Panel to be proved, shall demonstrate
the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interest in the domain name. ...
2002-07-09 - Case Details
Parties’ Allegations
Complainant claims that the domain name is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, as it is nothing more than the SANDS
trademark with a descriptive designation added at the end. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar to Complainant’s Trademarks
Respondent argues that, because the Caribbean is associated with beaches,
is not identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s SANDS trademarks. ...
2001-12-14 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
6.1 Elements to be proved
To succeed, the Complainant must establish under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy that
i) the said Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which it has rights;
ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the said Domain Name; and
iii) the said Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent.
6.2 Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant claims rights in the unregistered service marks "MAGNUM" "4D" and "MAGNUM 4D". ...When compared with the registered service mark "MAGNUM-ENE", the said Domain Name is confusingly similar. The second level domain (SLD) is also identical to the Complainant's common law mark "MAGNUM 4D".
6.3 Respondent's rights or legitimate interests in the said Domain Name
The Complainant asserts that it has not given any consent to the Respondent to use its marks as part of the said Domain Name. ...
2002-07-31 - Case Details
Complainants
The Complainants submit
the following:
(i) The Respondent's
domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the PRO DIVE mark.
The Complainants have rights
in the PRO DIVE mark and a substantial reputation in their PRO DIVE mark, both
in Australia and Europe.
The use of the lower case
format and the addition of the ".com" are not significant in determining
whether the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark (see,
inter alia, CBS Broadcasting Inc. v. Worldwide Webs, Inc., WIPO
Case No. ...
2004-04-19 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Under the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove on the balance of probabilities that:
- the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights;
- 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.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights in the mark “Cyberplus” by virtue of its registered trade marks as well as unregistered trade mark rights deriving from its extensive use of that name.
...
2021-03-31 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it owns registered trade mark rights for its BOBO CHOSES mark
and in particular European Union trade mark registration 005871348. The disputed domain name wholly
incorporates the Complainant’s trade mark and is therefore confusingly similar to it. The addition of a dash
and the word “shop” after the BOBO CHOSES mark in the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding
of confusing similarity. ...
2023-02-17 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name wholly contains the Complainant’s trademark. The generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, is of no significance in comparing the domain name with the trademark for the purpose of the Policy and the addition of the descriptive word “prepaid” does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark. ...The only distinctive element of the disputed domain name is the Complainant’s trademark and accordingly the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark SIMYO in respect of which it has established rights.
B. ...
2015-02-24 - Case Details
The complaint was duly
filed as indicated in Section 3 above.
5.The Parties’ Contentions
Infospace contends that
the domain names in question are identical or confusingly similar to its trade
marks and trading names; that Dominion Hill has no right or legitimate interest
in respect of the domain names; and that the domain names have been registered
and are being used in bad faith.
...There has been no response
by Dominion Hill to either of the complaints, notwithstanding the fact that
delivery to its noted email address has clearly been made.
6.Panel Findings
Under paragraph 4 of the
UDRP the Complainant’s burden is to prove in relation to the complaint that:
(i)the domain name
at issue 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 interest in respect of the domain name;
(iii)the domain name
has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2001-02-05 - Case Details
The complaint was duly
filed as indicated in Section 3 above.
5.The Parties’ Contentions
Infospace contends that
the domain names in question are identical or confusingly similar to its trade
marks and trading names; that Dominion Hill has no right or legitimate interest
in respect of the domain names; and that the domain names have been registered
and are being used in bad faith.
...There has been no response
by Dominion Hill to either of the complaints, notwithstanding the fact that
delivery to its noted email address has clearly been made.
6.Panel Findings
Under paragraph 4 of the
UDRP the Complainant’s burden is to prove in relation to the complaint that:
(i)the domain name
at issue 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 interest in respect of the domain name;
(iii)the domain name
has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2001-02-05 - Case Details
Discussion
In order to succeed in its claim, Complainant must demonstrate that all of the following elements enumerated in Paragraph 4(a) of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy") have been satisfied:
i. the domain name in dispute 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 with respect to the disputed domain name; and
iii. the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Decision
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Panel finds that the domain name ritarudner.com is confusingly similar to Complainant’s common law trademark Rita Rudner; that Respondent Internetco Corp. has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name, and that the Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. ...
2000-08-08 - Case Details
Therefore, so the argument goes, it is "not possible" for the Domain Name to be "confusingly similar" to any trademark of the Complainant.
7.18 This sort of argument has been raised before a number of previous panels.
...However, as in Olymp Bezner it is not necessary to decide this issue
in this case.
7.19 When determining whether or not a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark, the ".com" suffix which denotes the generic top-level domain name, or gTLD, may be ignored. ...
2004-04-29 - 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...
2025-04-07 - Case Details
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 4
6b. Substantive Matters
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the f irst 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...
2025-07-07 - Case Details