Parties’ Contentions
Complainant contends that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to its mark, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names, and that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Names in bad faith by offering to sell it for profit.
...Discussion
To obtain relief under the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the complainant to prove each of the following:
(1) 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
(2) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name; and
(3) that the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
...
2001-04-26 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
5.1 Complainant contends that Respondent has registered as a domain name a mark which is confusingly similar or identical to the service marks registered and used by Complainant, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the domain name at issue, and that Respondent has registered and is using the domain name at issue in bad faith.
5.2 Respondent has not contested the allegations of the Complaint.
6. Discussion and Findings
6.1 Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles the Panel is to use in determining the dispute: "A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules, and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
6.2 Since both the Complainant and Respondent are domiciled in the United States, and since United States’ courts have recent experience with similar disputes, to the extent that it would assist the Panel in determining whether the Complainant has met its burden as established by Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Panel shall look to rules and principles of law set out in decisions of the courts of the United States.
6.3 Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following:
1) 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,
2) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and,
3) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
6.4 It is clear that the domain name at issue is identical to the service mark INGRAM MICRO in which the Complainant has rights.
6.5 Complainant has alleged and Respondent has failed to deny that Respondent
has no legitimate interests in respect of the domain name at issue. ...
2001-09-18 - Case Details
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed in this proceeding, the Complainant must prove (i) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which it has rights; (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...This includes the acceptance of plausible evidence of the Complainant which has not been disputed.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has registered and unregistered rights in the mark 7DAYS. ...
2010-03-11 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
In order for the disputed domain name to be transferred to the Complainant, the Complainant must have demonstrated, in accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, that:
(i) the 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 domain name; and
(iii) the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has rights in the trademark ROCKSTAR GAMES. ...
2008-01-08 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the complainant must prove each of the following:
(1) 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
(2) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Panels have long held that the addition of a gTLD suffix is irrelevant in an
examination of identicality. ...
2006-08-03 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s
contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
As a starting point, the Panel notes that the Complainant uses the trademark AMBIEN in all of the disputed domain names; there is no disputing the fact that the Respondent is using the trademark of the Complainant in the domain names.
...Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the registered trademark of the Complainant.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The trademark AMBIEN belongs to the Complainant and is used and registered by it since 1993. ...
2005-10-24 - Case Details
It
has therefore not contested the allegations of the Complaint and the Panel shall
decide on the basis of the Complainant’s submissions, and all inferences
that can reasonably be drawn therefrom (Rules, paragraph 14(b)).
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name consists of a combination of the Complainant’s well-known trademark with the descriptive term “store” (the gTLD “.com” cannot be taken into consideration when judging confusing similarity between the domain name and the Complainant’s trademark). ...In conclusion the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark TAMIFLU of the Complainant.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not licensed or otherwise consented to the use of its trademark TAMIFLU to the Respondent. ...
2006-04-21 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s
contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name, if not absolutely identical, is very similar to the Complainant registered trademark PEEK UND CLOPPENBURG. ...Consequently the panel finds that the domain name at issue is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant, nor does it have the permission, consent or license of the Complainant to register the domain name at issue.
...
2007-04-02 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
The burden for the Complainant under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is to prove:
(i) that the Domain Name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
(ii) that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant alleges and the Respondent agrees that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s TELEROUTE mark.
...
2007-07-16 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant submits:
1. The Respondent has registered a domain name that is “clearly” identical to the trademark of the Complainant which could cause confusion in the minds of potential customers looking to find the Complainants website.
...The Complainant submits that the Respondent in using the domain name has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating confusion with the Complainant.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied from the Complainant’s evidence that it has unregistered trademark rights in the mark STAN JAMES. ...
2007-06-13 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
The Panel has reviewed the Complaint and supporting evidence and finds that the Complaint is made out.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There is no doubt that the addition of the suffix “.com” does not serve to vary a mark. The Complainant has shown that it has rights in the WATTYL mark and that the disputed domain name incorporates that mark and simply adds “.com” to it. The disputed domain name is thus confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights and the first element of the Policy is made out.
...
2010-02-10 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
The Panel finds that Complainant owns common-law trademark rights in the mark THE BREAD BECKERS; that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark; that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, and that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has been using the mark THE BREAD BECKERS in commerce for twelve years in connection with the bread business and related goods and services. ...
2010-02-10 - Case Details
The Panel will proceed to evaluate Complainant's evidence, and his own examination of Respondent’s website, against the requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar.
Complainant has demonstrated rights in its PRICELINE and NAME YOUR OWN PRICE marks sufficient to invoke the Policy. One of the disputed domain names incorporates the PRICELINE mark as its dominant feature, and the other two are confusingly similar to the NAME YOUR OWN PRICE marks. A long string of unbroken precedent holds that when the marks at issue are incorporated as the dominant feature of a domain name, for Policy purposes confusion is not obviated by addition of an everyday descriptive word. ...
2010-08-19 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different disputed domain
name registrants (referred to below as “the Respondent”) in a single proceeding.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The Complainant’s trademark CARREFOUR PASS is reproduced within the disputed domain names.
Accordingly, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
Although the addition of other terms (here “alerta”, “-alertas”, “clientes”, “confirme”, “firma”, “movil”, “portal-”
and “portal”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such
terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the mark
for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2025-07-03 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the
Policy have been satisfied:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name, trade mark 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 or subsequently used in bad faith.
The onus of proving these elements is on the Complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is identical to the Trade Mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...
2026-02-25 - Case Details
With respect to equity and procedural efficiency, the Panel sees no reason why
consolidation of the disputes would be inequitable to any party or procedurally inefficient.
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...
2025-09-01 - 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...
2025-08-27 - Case Details
The Panel did not consider this communication for the purposes of this decision.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain
name is confusingly similar to the mark 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.
...
2024-04-18 - Case Details
Privacy Service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf /Super Green, WIPO Case No. DIO2022-0001.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The entirety of the mark is reproduced and recognizable within the Disputed Domain Name. Accordingly, the
Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
Although the addition of other terms, here “NFT”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements,
the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the
Disputed Domain Name and the Mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2024-05-14 - 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...
2025-12-30 - Case Details