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...
2025-10-06 - Case Details
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 3.1, section 1.7.
Although the addition of other terms (here, “4k”) 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. ...Discussion and Findings
6.1 Preliminary Issue: Consent to Remedy
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-03-13 - 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...
2026-03-13 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Trade
Mark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain names,
and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. ...The Panel finds the entirety of the Trade Mark is reproduced within the disputed domain names.
Accordingly, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Trade Mark for the purposes of the
Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
...
2023-12-26 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that:
- the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks;
- the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name;
- the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith
B. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2023-07-17 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the
trademarks in which it has rights, since its IG trademark is immediately recognizable in the disputed domain
names as the leading element, and that the addition of the terms "profile" and “viewer” to the Complainant’s
IG trademark does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.
...Considering all the circumstances of the present case, the Panel will therefore proceed to review the facts of
the case and subsequently make a decision on the merits.
7. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2023-07-13 - Case Details
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, for this purpose the Panel shall decide the
Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the
Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has proved its rights for its trademark ELECNOR. The disputed domain name is identical
to the Complainant’s trademark. ...Prior UDRP panels have consistently found that the
mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or widely known
trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith (see WIPO Overview 3.0,
section 3.1.4).
...
2023-09-05 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its HARVEY NICHOLS
trademarks because the disputed domain name is virtually identical to the Complainant’s HARVEY
NICHOLS trademarks. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To begin with, the Panel confirms that the Complainant has satisfied the threshold requirement of having
trademark rights in HARVEY NICHOLS.
...
2023-08-02 - Case Details
The disputed domain
name consists of the Trade Mark plus the Australian country code Top-Level Domain extension “.au”, which
should be disregarded in the assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly
similar. As such, the disputed domain name contains the entire Trade Mark without alteration.
...However, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the
Respondent’s default.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is identical to the Trade Mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...
2023-08-28 - Case Details
Substantive Elements of the Policy
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
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark, having used it professionally since 2000.
...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 4
B. ...
2023-08-24 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant’s primary contentions can be summarized as follows:
(a) The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademark. The
Complainant’s Trademark is reproduced in its entirety. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in the Complainant’s Trademark, based on its various
trademark registrations such as, inter alia, the trademarks listed in Section 4.
...
2023-08-22 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it has trade mark rights in the PULTEGROUP mark. The disputed
domain name wholly incorporates its PULTEGROUP mark and is therefore confusingly similar to its
registered trade mark. The addition of the letter “s” or of the abbreviation for a United States incorporated
company “inc” is insufficient to prevent a finding of confusing similarity.
...
2023-08-16 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it is the owner of trademark registrations for the mark SBARRO in
numerous jurisdictions worldwide in connection with food and restaurant services. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-09-15 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the OBAGI trademark.
The disputed domain name incorporates the OBAGI trademark in its entirety. ...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark
in which the Complainant has rights. The above requirement provided for in paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is
accordingly satisfied.
...
2023-09-15 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated rights through registration on the 1INCH trademark.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-09-22 - Case Details
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following:
(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 respect of 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
The disputed domain name incorporates the EMERGO trademark in its entirety, with the addition of the
letters “br”. ...
2023-09-21 - Case Details
Under paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, “[a] Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and
documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that
it deems applicable”.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Accordingly, the
disputed domain name is/are identical or confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
While the addition of other terms (here, “spain,”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements,
the Panel finds the addition of such a term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the
disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2023-09-19 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
JACQUEMUS trade mark in which the Complainant has rights as the disputed domain name incorporates
the entire JACQUEMUS trade mark with the mere addition of the term “-outlet” which does not prevent the
likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trade mark.
...Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2023-09-13 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the FARFETCH
trade mark in which the Complainant has rights as the disputed domain name incorporates the entire
FARFETCH trade mark with the mere addition of the term “-au” which does not prevent the likelihood of
confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trade mark.
...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. ...
2023-09-12 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to his common
law trademark JAS MATHUR.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed
domain name. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In this case, the Complainant claims common law rights, in the nature of unregistered trademark rights, in his
personal name JAS MATHUR. ...
2023-09-05 - Case Details