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
The Complainant has shown rights in respect of the BERNAT mark for the purposes of the Policy.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-04-11 - Case Details
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...
2025-04-11 - Case Details
The Complainant is not affiliated with the Respondent and has never granted authorization nor license to use
the Marks or any trademark confusingly similar thereto. The Complainant also contends that the
Respondent did not disclose on its website a relationship with the Complainant.
...Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-10-09 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it is the owner of registered trademark rights for the mark
ONSTREAM. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-10-02 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends the following.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant. The full incorporation
of a trademark within the disputed domain name is sufficient to establish identicality or confusing similarity.
...Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-10-24 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The entirety of the SAINT JAMES mark is reproduced within the Domain Name. Accordingly, the Domain
Name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
The Panel finds that the addition of the geographical term “denmark” in the Domain Name does not prevent a
finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2024-10-17 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The Panel finds the mark ILUMA remains recognizable within the
disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 4
purposes of the Policy. ...
2024-11-08 - Case Details
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...
2025-06-03 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions but stated in an email to the Center of June
24, 2025, that “the parties are ready for mediation, both companies have separate identities and separate
domains”.
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...
2025-08-15 - 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 f irst 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...
2025-08-14 - Case Details
page 3
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...
2025-05-06 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant’s contentions except for the emails dated March 7,
2025 in which the Respondent stated that it “no longer wish to pursue any further complaints regarding the
domain name in question” and that it has decided to “take necessary steps to remove the domain” from its
“end and permanently shut it down”.
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...
2025-05-02 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s trademarks; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the
disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...D2016-2650, in which the domain name
was found to be confusingly similar to the mark EASTPAK.
As set forth in section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, “[w]here the relevant trademark is recognizable within
the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative,
meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.” ...
2025-05-01 - 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.
6.2. Substantive Matter
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 4
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...
2025-04-30 - Case Details
WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP
Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.11.
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Discussion and Findings
6.1 Preliminary Issue
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-08-05 - Case Details
The entirety of the trademark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed
domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0,
section 1.7.
...The Panel therefore concludes that the Respondent has been given a f...
6.2 Subsitantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-06-30 - 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.
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...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...
2025-06-30 - Case Details
The entirety of the MIROVA Trademarks is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the
disputed domain name confusingly similar to the MIROVA Trademarks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO
Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-07-25 - 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. ...Respondents
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-07-17 - Case Details
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...
2024-06-28 - Case Details