Paragraph 4a of the Policy directs that Complainant must prove each of the following:
- that the domain names registered by Respondent are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark in which Complainant has rights
- that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names, and
- that the domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
...Identity or Confusing Similarity
Complainant has, according to Paragraph 4a(i) of the Policy, to prove that the domain names at issue are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark in which Complainant has rights.
The domain names at issue are , and .
...
2002-01-24 - Case Details
vii) Complainant has failed to discharge the burden of showing that Respondent
has no legitimate right or interest, or that he has registered and is using
the domain name in bad faith.
7. Discussion and Findings
Identical or Confusingly Similar Trademark
7.1 Complainant has demonstrated substantial trademark use of "Miles&More"
both alone and in conjunction with "Lufthansa" and other indicia. ...However, for the purpose of this decision, the Panel
proceeds on the basis that such rights existed at the date of registration of
the domain name in October 1998 and that the domain name is confusingly similar
to the trademarks.
Rights and Legitimate Interests
7.2 As clearly set out in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the onus is on the
complainant to establish each of the required elements of that paragraph. ...
2002-04-05 - Case Details
- With respect to the elements described in paragraph 4(a)(i), the Complainant
makes no specific submissions with respect to the question of whether the domain
name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which it has rights,
assuming, perhaps, that this is unnecessary because of the identity between
the two. ...As a number of previous Panels have noted, the purpose of the UDRP
is to prevent the bad faith registration of domain names that are identical
or confusingly similar to trade marks. This is a limited purpose that does not
presently cover the protection of geographical names, however desirable this
may be: see further WIPO Case No. ...
2002-05-06 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that (1) the domain name "PLANETHEINEKEN.com" is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, in which the Complainant has rights; (2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; (3) the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Comparable cases, where in absence of any substantive response of the Respondent the Panel, based on the circumstances of the case, has concluded that the (not identical but) confusingly similar domain name was registered and used in bad faith are e.g.Guerlain S.A. v. HI Investments (case No. ...
2001-02-06 - Case Details
As to the reverse domain name hijacking, the Respondent notes that the Complainants changed their trading name in November 2001, some 17 months after Richard Lambert registered the domains.
5. Discussion and Findings
A. Domain Names Confusingly Similar to the Trademarks
There is no doubt that and are confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainants. ...Decision
In the light of the foregoing, the Panel decides that the domain names at issue are confusingly similar to Complainants’ trademarks, that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain names, and further, that the Respondent appears to have acted in bad faith in registering and using the disputed domain names. ...
2002-08-06 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) that the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and,
(ii) that the Respondent has no legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and,
(iii) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Application of Paragraph 4(a) to the Facts
I. Identical or Confusingly Similar to Trademark or Service Mark.
Complainant is required under Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy to prove that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights. ...
2002-09-23 - Case Details
The Panel did not find any circumstances sufficiently exceptional to request Supplemental Filings and declined to receive them.
Whether the Domain Name is Identical or Confusingly Similar to a Trademark
6.4.The Domain Name subject to this Complaint is . The inclusion of <.biz> or equivalent in a Domain Name is inevitable and of no consequence for the determination of identity or confusing similarity. ...Decision
The Decision of the Administrative Panel is that the disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark PEPSI in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed Domain Name; and that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed Domain Name in bad faith. ...
2002-08-06 - Case Details
The Respondent contends that the fact that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to AVOLUTION "cannot be grounds for the Complaint."
The Respondent points out that currently the Domain Name connects to a site hosted by Netfirms. ...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."
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name, absent the generic domain suffix, is very similar to the Complainant’s claimed service mark AVOLUTION. ...
2004-04-16 - Case Details
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel has verified, in accordance to paragraph 4.5 of the WIPO Overview 2.0, the trademark registrations indicated by the Complainant in its Complaint and is satisfied that the Complainant is the owner, inter alia, of the following registrations:
a. ...In the absence of any argument to the contrary from the Respondent, this Panel concludes that, on balance, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks, therefore the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2013-02-14 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant is the owner of trademark rights for UNITAID. ...The Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain names are, for the purposes of the Policy, functionally identical to the word element of the Complainant’s UNITAID trademark, and are in any event confusingly similar to that mark.
In light of the above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven the condition under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, requiring that the disputed domain names registered by the Respondent be identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2013-01-11 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar, if not identical, to Complainant’s registered trade marks.
...The Respondent has engaged in a pattern of blocking registration against other well-known brands.
B. Respondent
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has no trade mark or service mark in the United States, which is where the Respondent “entirely operates her business”.
...
2013-03-19 - Case Details
Luckily, the fact that the Domain Name had passed into the redemption period was spotted due to the vigilance of the Center and the Domain Name was then reactivated and placed on hold, so that the Panel may render its decision in the matter.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.8 The Complainant owns various registered trade marks around the world for a device that for the most part comprises the words “ice” and “watch” in combination, with the term “ice” in larger letters placed on top of the word “watch”. ...In the circumstances, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar (as that term is understood for the purposes of the Policy) with a number of trade marks in which the Complainant owns rights.
6.9 The Domain Name is also confusingly similar to the Community trade mark registration no. 005549209 for the word “icewatch”, and presumably ICE IP S.A. is in some manner connected with the Complainant. ...
2013-03-12 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its RIGOL trade mark, as the Disputed Domain Name is substantially similar to the mark.
...This request consequently fails.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights
The Complainant’s claim of ownership in the trade mark RIGOL is not disputed by the Respondent.
...
2012-12-20 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is deceptively and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s aforesaid trademark/trade name COX & KINGS as also to its domain names containing the expression “Cox and Kings”. ...The Panel, therefore, concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and the Complainant has therefore succeeded in establishing the first element of the test in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2013-11-15 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.3 The Complainant has registered trade mark rights in at least one word trade mark for the term “Emazing”. The Domain Name takes the form of that term in combination with the “.com” Top-Level Domain. Given this, the Domain Name is clearly confusingly similar, if not identical, to that trade mark. In the circumstances, the Complainant has made out the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2015-09-04 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trademark,
that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests on the disputed domain name that is the subject of
the Complaint, since it has no identical or similar prior company name in Benelux and/or prior trademark in
Benelux, France or in any countries in the European Union, including a European Union trademark.
...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...
2026-02-26 - Case Details
Australian Trademark laws do not grant the Complainant with domain names, which are ruled by the “First in, First serve” basis.
The Disputed Domain Names are not confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. Different parties can use similar names in Australia with reference to dissimilar activities or business, such as crypto currency trading and social media. ...Accordingly, this Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, and the first element of the Policy under paragraph 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
...
2022-01-12 - Case Details
Failure to prove 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. ...Unsolicited Supplemental Filings
6.2. Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests, Bad Faith, and the Scope of the Policy
C. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
7. ...
2025-03-28 - Case Details
The Panel finds the marks are recognizable within the disputed domain name.
Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the marks for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-03-18 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The Complainant however says as follows: “In this regard, we submit that the Respondent’s use of a domain
name, identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade marks, to redirect users to a third party
website with no apparent affiliation to the Respondent does not support a claim to rights or legitimate
interests: Section 2.5.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0; Carlos Alberto Vives Restrepo v. ...
2025-10-10 - Case Details