It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, where appropriate, will
decide consistent with the consensus views captured therein.
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...
2024-05-07 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its rights because
it incorporates its NATIXIS and NATIXIS COFICINE trademarks in their entirety.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-02-18 - Case Details
It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on
Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).
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...
2024-06-13 - Case Details
Furthermore, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the TOPSHOP Mark
because it incorporates that Mark in its entirety and adds the term “metaverse”, which does not prevent a
finding of confusingly similarity. ...case=D2021-4023
page 4
It is also well settled that adding the gTLD, here “.com”, is not significant in determining whether a domain
name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. See CBS Broadcasting Inc. v. Worldwide Webs, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0834.
...
2022-09-07 - Case Details
This dispute resolution procedure is accepted by the domain name
registrant as a condition of registration.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established trademarks rights for the purposes of the UDRP. Noting that due to the
global nature of the Internet and Domain Name System, the jurisdiction where the trademark is valid is not
considered relevant to the Panel assessment under the first element. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-06-01 - Case Details
Substantive Requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In comparing the Mark with the disputed domain name , it is evident that the
latter consists of the Mark, followed by the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.email”.
...Finally, prior UDRP panels have held that in certain circumstances, registrants of domain names have an
affirmative duty to abstain from registering and using a domain name which is either identical or confusingly
similar to a prior trademark held by others and that contravening that duty may constitute bad faith. ...
2022-05-24 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trade mark BLACK & DECKER, 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.
...On the basis of the evidence introduced by the Complainant, the Panel concludes as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has trade mark rights in BLACK & DECKER by virtue of use and registration. ...
2020-08-10 - Case Details
In considering these elements, paragraph 15(a) of the Rules provides that the Panel shall decide the Complaint on the basis of statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules, and any other rules or principles of law that the Panel deems applicable.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element has a low threshold merely serving as a gateway requirement under the Policy. ...Accordingly, the Panel holds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark on which the Complaint is based.
The Complainant has passed the first threshold of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2019-09-19 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the burden of proving that all three elements are present lies with the Complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There is no doubt that disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant´s trademark VIRKON, which is registered in many countries around the world, including the Russian Federation on September 20, 1993, registration No. 134614, in class 05 of the international classification. ...For all the above cited reasons, the Panel concludes that disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, and therefore the condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is fulfilled.
...
2010-11-10 - Case Details
Let us consider the applicability, in detail, of what is stated in paragraph 4 (a) of the Policy.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name in question is composed exactly of two marks that are mark registrations of the Complainant, which are, "BMW" and "X5".
...The domain name in dispute and registered by the Respondent is confusingly similar to the mark registrations of the Complainant, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name and the Respondent’s domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2002-12-04 - Case Details
The Complainants state that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the First Complainant’s
ICERIVER trademark, because it incorporates it in its entirety, and the “.eu” country code Top-Level Domain
(“ccTLD”) is irrelevant for the confusing similarity analysis.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar to a name in respect of which a right or rights are recognized or
established by national law of a Member State and/or European Union law
Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(i) of the ADR Rules requires that the disputed domain name be “identical or
confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by national law of a
member State and/or European Union law”. ...
2026-03-10 - Case Details
Complainant
In summary, the Complainant contends as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SOUTH32 trademark, which has
become one of Australia’s and the world’s leading mining industry brands. ...The
Complainant was not the first to have an established trademark in the term.
page 6
Identical or confusingly similar
There is similarity but the Respondent has shown that its rights were first in time.
...
2023-07-12 - Case Details
It follows that the Panel is satisfied
that the Domain Name is at least confusingly similar with the Complainant’s mark and that the Complainant
has established the first element of the Policy.
...Lyuben Stoev
Case No. D2025-3902
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking...
2026-01-02 - Case Details
See section 4.2 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under the first element, the Complainant must establish that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly
similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...Substantive Matters – Three Elements
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-07-17 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s trademark LENSKART in its entirety. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element of the Policy functions essentially as a standing element in which the Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark which is identical or confusingly similar to the disputed domain name when compared to it, typically on a straightforward side-by-side basis. ...
2021-06-29 - Case Details
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules directs the Panel to decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable.
A. 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 name, trade mark or service mark.
...Having regard to those matters, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to at least the Complainant’s trade marks referred to above. Each of the Complainant’s trade marks, ARGYLE and ARGYLE DIAMONDS, are wholly encompassed within the disputed domain name. ...
2021-10-21 - Case Details
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the MERCADONA trademark because it reproduces this trademark by only adding “-online”, which is a generic word on the Internet, and the disputed domain name is identical to the DELIPLUS trademark.
...The Panel will regard all their statements as part of the Respondent’s contentions, and will refer to all of them as the Respondent.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided evidence that it is the owner of the MERCADONA and the DELIPLUS trademarks. ...
2021-12-13 - 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...
2024-06-03 - Case Details
Complainants
In summary, the Complainants contend as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The disputed domain names are identical, or at least confusingly similar, to the OLEFY trademark. ...It has provided access to the general email account since August 20, 2022 to provide VTT with full access to
received email.
Identical or confusingly similar
The Respondent was fully aware of the first Complainant’s trademarks and the disputed domain names are
similar to the second Complainant’s company name. ...
2023-01-30 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondents
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-11-13 - Case Details