How is this “confusingly similar”?

I’m not sure how this UDRP case passed the confusingly similar test.

The first prong of a UDRP case is whether the domain name at issue is identical or confusingly similar to one of the complainant’s trademarks.

It’s usually the simplest part of a UDRP. But sometimes complainants make a biiiig stretch in comparing the domain to their mark. Sadly, a lot of panelists also bite.

Consider the recent case for GoCables.com.

The complainant, Lastar, Inc., d/b/a Cables To Go, has a trademark for Cables To Go. In order to get from Cables To Go to GoCables.com you have to eliminate the middle word and reverse the order of two very generic terms, cables and go.

It seems like a stretch to me. I could see two firms coming up with these very different names at different times and not having any confusion as they competed in the marketplace.

Granted, in this case the respondent is using the domain for an adult site.

But I question how this case made it past the first prong of UDRP.