A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the GULA GULA trademark.
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is 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.
...
2018-11-21 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s LINGUA FRANCA mark, representing that the Respondent competes directly with the revived Lingua Franca magazine. ...International Electronic Communications Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s LINGUA FRANCA mark, in which the Complainant has established rights. ...
2019-06-11 - Case Details
Those elements are that:
(i) the disputed domain name 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 in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Respondent
7. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it is the owner of registered trademark rights for the mark LEDGER STAX. ...
2025-04-15 - 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.
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...
2024-04-12 - Case Details
The Panel accepts the arguments in favor of consolidation and grants the request to
consolidate.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Consolidation of Respondents
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
D. Rights or Legitimate Interests
E. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-09-09 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel will admit it into the record and, in addition, the Respondent’s substantive reply.
B. 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 trademark rights.
...Unsolicited supplemental filing
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-11-04 - 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. ...Furthermore, the “.com” generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) in the disputed domain name does not affect the
determination that the disputed domain name is at least confusingly similar to the CARREFOUR marks in which
the Complainant has rights (see also Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. ...
2025-05-06 - Case Details
Having said so, the Panel comes to the following Decision:
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
First, it is well accepted that Complainant has shown rights in respect of its PEET trademark for the purposes
of the Policy. ...Discussion and Findings
6.1 Preliminary Issue: Acceptance of Supplemental Filing
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-07-22 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the AHNU trademark. The Disputed Domain Name is identical to that
trademark. ...This, in effect,
puts the registrant on notice that another person (the immediately prior registrant) may have rights in a
trademark to which the domain name is identical or confusingly similar. Where, as in this case, the drop-
catching registrant fails to take any steps to determine if such rights exist, then the registrant is taking the risk
that such rights do exist. ...
2024-06-25 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the BLUE JEANS trademark (written as two words).
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is 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.
...
2021-06-30 - Case Details
Thus, for the complainant to succeed, it must prove all of the three elements under the Policy:
(i) the Respondent’s Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and
(iii) the Respondent’s Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant must establish that the Respondent’s Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2021-09-16 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s GILLETTE mark.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the GILLETTE mark.
...
2021-12-20 - 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.
...In view of the minimal nature of the delay as well as the lack of any prejudice to, or objection (assuming there would be grounds for this) by the Complainant, the Panel has decided to admit the Response.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Disregarding the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) suffix, the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trade mark.
...
2021-12-17 - 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 it 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 trademark rights.
There are two parts to this inquiry: the Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark at the date the Complaint was filed and, if so, the disputed domain name must be shown to be identical or confusingly similar to the trademark.
The Complainant has proven ownership of at least the three registered trademarks identified in section 4 above.
...
2021-04-23 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the GRAB trademark and in the GRABFINANCE in a fancy script trademark. ...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is 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.
...
2021-07-19 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed Complainant must satisfy the Panel that:
(i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and
(iii) the disputed domain names are registered and are being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In this proceeding, the primary issue comes down to who owns the disputed domain names, as both Complainant and Respondent have made claims to own them. ...
2019-12-16 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trade mark (see section 4 above). The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. ...B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
While the Complainant’s Chilean registered trade mark is a device mark the most prominent element by far is the name FACELE (in lower case). ...
2019-08-08 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel, in accordance with the WIPO Overview 3.0, is of the opinion that the Policy is applicable to common-law trademarks if the Complainant has shown that the mark has become a distinctive identifier associated with the Complainant or its goods and services, as held in Barry D. ...Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has established rights according to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2019-07-17 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel declines the Complainant’s request for leave to
submit a supplemental filing.
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...
2026-02-20 - Case Details
Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is virtually identical and confusingly similar to its famous "BELL" mark, particularly in so far as Complainant has used its mark extensively in the fields of telecommunications services and goods.
...The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
Complainant has met the burden of proving that Respondent is the registrant of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a trademark and service mark in which Complainant has rights, and it has thus established the first of the three elements necessary to a finding that Respondent has engaged in abusive domain name registration.
...
2001-01-25 - Case Details