Such minor
alterations and the inclusion of a non-distinctive term do not avoid a finding of confusing similarity, as panels
consistently held that a domain name is confusingly similar to the complainant's mark if such mark is
recognizable within the domain name. The addition of “holding” in fact reinforces the impression that the
Disputed Domain Name belongs to the holding company within the Complainant’s corporate group.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2026-02-23 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Complainant
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-06-04 - Case Details
It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.1 and, where appropriate, will
decide consistently 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...
2026-06-04 - Case Details
The onus of proving these elements is on the Complainant.
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...
2026-03-17 - 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...
2026-05-07 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its common law
MUNCHKINS marks, which the Respondent is not authorized to use. The Complainant asserts that the
Respondent is not commonly known by the name and is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services
but is trading on the Complainant’s goodwill and has generated actual confusion.
...The Respondent does not have an employee
named “Liz”, the person named in the single example given by the Complainant of a consumer inquiry
indicating confusion between the Complainant and the Respondent.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2026-05-06 - Case Details
At the same time, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, if a party, in the absence
of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any provision of, or requirement under, the Rules, or any
request from the Panel, the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate.
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
The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2026-05-05 - Case Details
(1) The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark.
The disputed domain name is highly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and trade name EQUINOR due to the fact that EQUINOR is the principal component of the disputed domain name, completed by a hyphen and a suffix “no”. ...In the following, the Panel will discuss in consecutive order, if each of these requirements are met here.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The test for identity or confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy demands a direct comparison between the Complainant’s mark and the textual string of the disputed domain name which is claimed to affect the Complainant.
...
2019-04-25 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the registered trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The closest representation of the Complainant’s trademark allowable in a domain name, which cannot contain an apostrophe or a space, is “fourntwenty”, as in the disputed domain name, which is therefore essentially identical.
...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 Panel is satisfied by the evidence that the Complainant has the requisite rights in the trademark FOUR’N TWENTY under the Policy.
...
2019-05-21 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name incorporates Complainant’s mark BENEFITFOCUS in its entirety. This is sufficient to establish confusing similarity (Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...D2002-0122).
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the BENEFITFOCUS mark of Complainant.
Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2020-05-01 - Case Details
Complainant
In its Complaint, Complainant contends as follows:
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WHATSAPP trademarks. The disputed domain name incorporates this mark in its entirety as its prominent element, in conjunction with the descriptive term “dating”.
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the WHATSAPP trademark, in which Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel also notes that according to the relevant WhoIs database, the registrant of record of the disputed domain name is “Anuj Patney”, and there is no evidence that this person is known by the disputed domain name. ...
2020-03-24 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that it has the requisite rights in its registered trademark INSTAGRAM and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) attaching to the disputed domain name is not relevant to the determination of confusing similarity. ...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 Panel is satisfied by the evidence presented that the Complainant has the requisite rights in the trademark INSTAGRAM. ...
2021-01-19 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel notes that the trademark rights claimed as a basis for this Complaint are owned by Electrolux Italia S.p.A, a subsidiary of the Complainant. ...The disputed domain name is indeed confusingly similar with the earlier trademarks ZANUSSI of the Complainant. The disputed domain name consists, materially, in the mere combination of the word “Zanussi”, which is identical to the trademarks of the Complainant, and the word “Center”. ...
2019-09-26 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Trade Mark, the
page 3
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, and the disputed
domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
...Substantive Elements of the Policy
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 acquired through use and registration.
...
2023-03-17 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has proved its rights over the AXA and AXA XL trademarks. The disputed domain name
consists of the AXA XL trademark in its entirety, in addition to the country-code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”)
“.co”. ...The ccTLD is typically ignored when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusing similar to a
trademark. See section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.
This Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademarks and therefore finds that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2023-04-28 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Based on article 2.1 of the Regulations, a request to transfer a domain name must meet three cumulative conditions:
(a) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to:
I. a trademark, or trade name, protected under Dutch law in which the complainant has rights; or
II. a personal name registered in the General Municipal Register (“gemeentelijke basisadministratie”) of a municipality in the Netherlands, or the name of a Dutch public legal entity or the name of an association or foundation registered in the Netherlands under which complainant undertakes public activities on a permanent basis; and
(b) respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(c) the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.
...As a result, the Panel is directed to decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of the complaint only.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Article 2.1(a) of the Regulations requires two elements to be proven. A disputed domain name should be (i) identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or tradename (ii) in which a complainant has rights.
...
2020-07-21 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s POLIMODA trademark. The only distinguishing feature is the disputed domain name’s “.pw” TLD extension. However, a TLD is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded in determining whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar. In this respect, the Panel refers to section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).
...
2019-12-16 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established the existence of trademark rights over AXA, AXA BANK and MyAXA, in particular with effect in France where the Respondent is located, as indicated above in the factual background.
...The disputed domain name is therefore confusingly similar to the trademarks of the Complainant.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Under the Policy, a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...
2019-12-04 - Case Details
According to the Complainant, the disputed domain names are visually, phonetically and conceptually
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks in which it has established rights, only differing to the
Complainant’s trademarks by one letter, characterizing an obvious and intentional misspelling of the
Complainant’s trademarks and a prime example of deliberate and opportunistic typo-squatting.
...The Complainant must prove in this administrative proceeding that each of the aforesaid three elements is
present so as to have the disputed domain names transferred to it, according to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
page 4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights in the HOSTELWORLD and HOSTELWORLD.COM trademarks
duly registered in several countries around the world (Annex 3 to the Complaint).
...
2022-11-09 - Case Details
Complainant
According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its META registered
trademark as it captures the entirety of its trademark with the mere adjunction of the term “coin”.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark META in its entirety with no alteration,
and combines this trademark with the term “coin”.
...
2023-02-10 - Case Details