Complainant
The Complainant makes the following contentions:
(i) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s HYDROPEPTIDE Mark;
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights nor any legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is subsequently being used in bad faith.
...The Panel notes that no documents were annexed to this communication in support of any of the contentions
above.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element, the Complainant must have a name, trade or service mark rights and the Domain
Name must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s name, trade or service mark.
...
2025-11-03 - Case Details
Respondent contends that P2P Club is an authorized distributor of Complainant’s ETERNABOND product
and that it has the authority to market and promote the “new Eternabond 10-foot product.”
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
B. Respondent
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-10-31 - Case Details
Complainant
5.1 The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a
transfer of the Disputed Domain Name.
5.2 Notably, the Complainant contends that as the Disputed Domain Name incorporates the term ROOFR
with only the addition of a single letter “r”, such use is identical to the Complainant’s use of its ROOFR marks
therefore, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the ROOFR marks as the minor alteration
does not significantly differentiate the Disputed Domain Name from the Complainant’s trademark. ...Respondent
5.5 The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions and therefore the Panel shall draw such
adverse inferences from the Respondent’s failure to respond as may be deemed appropriate.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.1 It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2025-10-29 - 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...
2025-12-17 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Trade Mark, the
Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, and the
disputed domain names have been registered or subsequently used in bad faith.
...page 5
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.
6.2 Substantive Issues
The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2025-11-07 - 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...
2026-03-04 - 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. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-03-03 - 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...
2025-12-23 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the f irst element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The Panel does not find the addition of the word
“lady” avoids a f inding of confusing similarity, and accordingly f inds the disputed domain name to be
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0,
section 1.7. ...
2023-12-15 - Case Details
sic).
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...
2023-12-13 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the f irst element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Discussion and Findings
(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-01-10 - Case Details
The Panel notes that in any event the contents of the Respondent’s submissions do not
alter the outcome of this decision.
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...
2024-01-09 - Case Details
Based on the foregoing guidance, the Panel makes the following findings and conclusions based on the
allegations and evidence contained in the Complaint, and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence
presented.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well established 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...
2025-07-31 - 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...
2024-05-03 - Case Details
Therefore, it is asserted that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
Trade Marks.
5.3 The Complainant states further that the Respondent appears to be using the Disputed Domain Name for
phishing purposes which is likely to cause serious financial loss for the Complainant’s customers and by
extension significant damage to the Complainant’s business and reputation. ...Respondent
5.6 The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions; and therefore, the Panel shall draw such
adverse inferences from the failure of the Respondent to reply as it deems appropriate.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.1 It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-02-20 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The Panel also concludes that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to
that mark. The Domain Name entirely incorporates the ONLYFANS mark and adds the words “leakz” (an
apparent misspelling of “leaks”) or “free”. ...
2024-03-25 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Under the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove on the balance of probabilities 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 the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-12-24 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s registered and well-recognized trademark NAVI as the disputed domain name subsumes the
trademark NAVI in its entirety. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-02-25 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Therefore, the disputed domain name should be considered confusingly similar with the Complainants’
trademarks for purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
...
2025-05-13 - 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...
2025-03-10 - Case Details