A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered identical or confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of the Policy. ...Accordingly, this Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark, and the first element of the Policy under paragraph 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
...
2020-01-20 - Case Details
For the purpose of easy comprehension of the Complainant (the only Party actively taking part in the proceeding) of the Panel’s decision without any necessity of translations, and in the interest of fairness to both Parties as well as the Panel’s obligation under paragraph 10(c) of the Rules, which provides that “the Panel shall ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition”, the Panel hereby decides under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, that the language of the proceeding shall be English and proceeds to its decision in English.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is required to establish the following: (i) that it has trademark rights, and, if so, (ii) that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark.
...On the basis of the foregoing findings, and according to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s OSRAM trademark, and the first element, paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is established.
...
2017-12-14 - Case Details
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking is defined in paragraph 1 of the Rules as meaning “using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain name holder of a domain name.”
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Respondent does not dispute that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's Swiss trade mark registration and the Panel so finds.
...If someone else has already registered a domain name identical or confusingly similar to the proposed new mark, that domain name will be unavailable to the business unless it negotiates a transfer. ...
2009-09-24 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(i) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is both confusingly similar and identical to the Complainant’s GREAT WOLF Marks.
...In that regard and apart from judging this proceeding through mere default of the Respondent, the Panel makes the following specific findings.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that confusion is likely to arise as a result of the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name.
...
2006-02-24 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant claims state common-law and statutory rights in MONTROSE JET CENTER as a mark and contends that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to that mark. The Complainant argues that the Respondent has never used a name equivalent to the Domain Names in its business and has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. ...The Complainant infers bad-faith registration and use of the Domain Names because they are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark and are used to redirect Internet users to a website about the Respondent’s directly competing business (see Policy, Paragraph 4(b)(iv)). ...
2006-06-30 - Case Details
Each of these elements is considered in turn below.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has satisfied the first element: the disputed domain name is “identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights.” ...Prior decisions under the Policy leave
little doubt that a registrant cannot have a right or a legitimate interest
in using a domain name that is confusingly similar to registered trademarks
or service marks in order to compete with the marks’ owner. ...
2004-12-13 - Case Details
The next question is whether
the disputed domain names isare identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
marks. In this regard, it cannot be said that the domain names and registered
trademarks are identical, given the addition of the suffixes "bikes"
and "-uk" in the case of the domain names. On the other hand, there
can be little doubt that the latter are confusingly similar to these marks,
on the basis submitted by the Complainant, namely that the letters "BMW"
are the dominant and distinctive component of each of the domain names. ...
2002-01-08 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element of the Policy requires the Complainant to establish that the Disputed Domain Name is
identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...case=D2012-1909
page 4
element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have relevant trademark rights; and second, is
the Disputed Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to those rights.
The Complainant has rights in NEXT-MICROBIOME trademark. This registration constitutes prima facie
evidence of the Complainant's rights in the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2026-01-09 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
registered trademark. The first element of the Policy is satisfied.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests by showing bona fide use, being commonly known by the domain name, or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. ...
2025-09-22 - Case Details
Having considered the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules, the
Supplemental Rules, and applicable principles of law, the Panel’s findings on each of the above-cited
elements are as follows.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires Complainant show that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly
similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SIGNIFY
HEALTH Mark in which Complainant has valid trademark rights. ...
2023-10-18 - Case Details
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 5
6.2 Substantive Issues
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 Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-10-17 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainants have established that the disputed domain name is
confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trademark and the requirement under the first limb of the Policy is
satisfied.
...The late filed Response and the identity of the Respondents
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
6. Decision...
2023-10-17 - Case Details
page 4
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has adduced evidence to demonstrate its established rights in
the SIMPLE MODERN mark.
...Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark.
Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2023-10-25 - Case Details
In the interest of fairness and due process, the Panel decides to accept the Late Response.
6.2. Substantive issues
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...
2025-12-01 - Case Details
Had the response been filed in either Russian or English, the Panel would have been able to consider it.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-12-01 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the 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...
2026-01-21 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark. The
Complainant further argues that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name
and has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2026-01-20 - Case Details
Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the
language of the proceeding shall be English.
6.2 Substantive Issues
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...
2025-09-03 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that:
- The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s JCDECAUX trade mark. The
disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trade mark with the addition of the suffix “-uzb”.
...Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the
language of the proceeding shall be English.
6.2 Substantive issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2025-09-02 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions and is therefore in default.
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...
2025-09-01 - Case Details