Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly similar
The Complainant contends that the domain name is identical to the trademark and service mark MELODIFESTIVALEN in which the Complainant has rights. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has shown that it is the owner of Swedish Trademark Registrations for the marks MELODIFESTIVALEN and BOLIBOMPA. ...
2004-06-14 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well established that generic Top-Level Domains such as ".com" may be disregarded in the assessment under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy (e.g. ...It is consistently decided that adding a generic term to an established mark does not affect the finding that a domain name is confusingly similar to that mark (e.g., Quixar Investments Inc. v. Dennis Hoffman,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0253 and Allianz, Compañia de Seguras y Reaseguros S.A. v. ...
2014-09-01 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
7. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
8. Decision...
2026-01-07 - Case Details
The Complainants submit that the respective Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to these marks.
The Complainants deny that the Respondent has any right or legitimate interest in respect of the Domain Names. ...The Panel further considers that the Domain Names and are confusingly similar to this mark. “Full Tilt” is the distinctive element of the mark; “poker” is descriptive. ...
2010-10-01 - Case Details
Nevertheless, this panel is of the view that the Complaint is not a case for applying the doctrine of laches.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is fundamental to establishing its case under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, a complainant sufficiently demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark.
...The question of whether merely figurative components of a registered trademark can be considered confusingly similar to the alpha-numeric string in a domain name (perhaps on grounds of association) is a largely untested one. ...
2012-02-16 - Case Details
The Complainants submit, firstly, that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar and nearly identical to the Complainant’s well-known CANTOR mark, as they incorporate the mark CANTOR exactly and in its entirety. ...As to the next issue of whether the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trade mark, the Panel finds that they are indeed confusingly similar. ...
2012-04-24 - Case Details
Failure to prove any one element will
lead to denial of the Complaint.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the undisputed evidence presented, the Panel finds that the Complainant has registered rights in
the MDS-MARATON DE SANTIAGO mark, among others. ...Respondent
6.2 Analysis and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith...
2023-01-13 - Case Details
Therefore, the Panel allows the consolidation of the Respondents in the present proceeding.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1
The Panel finds the entirety of the TOTAL trademark is reproduced within all of the disputed domain names.
Accordingly, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s TOTAL trademark for
the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
...
2023-06-01 - Case Details
page 4
Notably, the Complainants contend that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to
their INSTAGRAM and WHATSAPP Trade Marks in which the Complainants have rights, in accordance with
paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...Accordingly,
the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark WHATSAPP for the purposes
of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7, 1.8. ...
2024-06-06 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the Domain Names are identical and/or confusingly similar to the
Trade Mark in which it has rights, that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests with respect to
the Domain Names, and that the Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith. ...The Panel finds that the entirety of the Trade Mark is reproduced within the Domain Names. Accordingly,
these Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Trade Mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
...
2024-12-13 - Case Details
Failure to demonstrate any one element will
result in denial of the Complaint.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...As regards the ZAOBAO.COM mark, there is no additional element besides “qu”.
Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to both the ZAOBAO and ZAOBAO.COM
marks for the purposes of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 1.7, 1.8, and 1.11.1.
...
2025-02-04 - Case Details
Given the above, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered
trademark.
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain
name because:
1) it found no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known as “Souza cruz” or “Souza Cruz
Pedidos” prior to or after the registration of the disputed domain name. ...The Panel has reviewed the case and found the following:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2025-07-10 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel finds all the disputed domain names
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s M AND M DIRECT mark or its M AND M mark for the purposes of
the Policy. ...Language of the Proceeding
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-08-05 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant contends that all of the disputed domain names are common and purposeful misspellings of the Complainant’s Credit Karma name, and are visually and phonetically similar to both the CREDIT KARMA Marks and the various “creditkarma” domain names owned by the Complainant. ...For the above reasons, the Panel determines to follow the Center’s preliminary determination and accept the Complaint filed in English and it will render its decision in English.
6.5. Substantive Decision
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The burden for the Complainant under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is to prove that:
(i) The disputed domain names are 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 names; and
(iii) The disputed domain names have been registered and used in bad faith.
...
2017-07-31 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element requires the Complainant to establish the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark in which it has rights.
...Accordingly, it is found that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant has satisfied the first requirement under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2018-12-07 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trademarks FARRER AND CO and FARRER & CO. The Complainant is commonly known as “Farrer”, and uses its domain name for email. ...The disputed domain name , of which the significant component is “Farrer” and of which the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” may be disregarded, is found to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2019-07-16 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts that each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to its registered RHINO trademarks.
The Complainant states that the Respondent has no permission to use the complainant’s RHINO marks and challenges the Respondent’s claims to rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. ...Ignorance does not excuse the Respondent’s careless treatment of confusingly similar Domain Names exploiting the Complainant’s trademark to attract Internet users.
The Complainant is well known in the music industry, and the Respondent acknowledges conducting some sort of research before selecting the “rhino” Domain Names. ...
2021-04-12 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Complainant holds rights in the HAVAIANAS mark.
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant has satisfied the first element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2021-07-30 - Case Details
Thus it contends that as the disputed domain name consists entirely of the expression “IBM”, except for the suffix “.net.au”, it is identical or confusingly similar to its trademarks. The Complainant also contends that it has recorded over AUD$13 billion in sales revenues in Australia alone in the five years from 2002 – 2006. ...The Panel will deal with each of these requirements in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark IBM, which as a whole has been incorporated into the domain name and which further consists of the second level domain suffix ‘.net.au’. ...
2008-01-18 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its common-law and registered REBELDE mark and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. ...Accordingly, the request for additional time or permission to submit supplemental filings is denied.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It appears from the record that the Complainant has not yet obtained a registered trademark for REBELDE as a standard-character mark. ...
2008-01-07 - Case Details