A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the trademark MONEY METALS EXCHANGE through
registration and use demonstrated in the record. The Panel also concludes that the Domain Name is
confusingly similar to that mark. The Domain Name incorporates the MONEY METALS portion of the mark,
and adds the term “us.” ...
2023-10-26 - Case Details
The onus of proving these elements is on the Complainant.
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 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 “uae”, 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. ...
2023-10-25 - Case Details
page 3
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated rights through registration and use on the BIONTECH 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...
2023-10-23 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Trade
Marks, the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, and
the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
...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 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 Marks acquired through use and registration.
...
2023-02-15 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade
Mark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and the
disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...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 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 acquired through use
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 4
The disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the Trade Mark (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section
1.7) followed by the word “official”.
...
2023-02-14 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the trademark TEFLON through widespread and
longstanding registration and use demonstrated in the record.
The Panel also concludes that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to that mark.
The addition of the word “trucking” to the distinctive and fanciful trademark does nothing to avoid such
finding, since the entirety of the mark – TEFLON – is reproduced in the Domain Name, and is clearly
recognizable therein.
...
2023-01-26 - 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.
...In the light of all the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar
to the Complainant’s trademark and the Complainant has established element 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2023-01-11 - Case Details
Paragraph 5(f) of the Rules establishes that if a respondent does not respond to a complaint, in the
absence of exceptional circumstances, the panel’s decision shall be based upon the complaint.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has duly proven that it owns prior trademark rights for BULLPADEL, and that the disputed
domain name is constituted solely of the trademark BULLPADEL 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...
2023-02-10 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends the following:
A. the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark, paragraph 4(a)(i); Rules,
paragraphs 3(b)(viii), (b)(ix)(1);
B. the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, paragraph 4(a)(ii);
Rules, Paragraph 3(b)(ix)(2); and
C. the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, paragraphs
4(a)(iii), 4(b); Rules, paragraph 3(b)(ix)(3).
...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The element to decide is whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s trademark. ...
2023-02-22 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name consists of the term DOUBLELIST.
The country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.cc” is disregarded, as ccTLDs typically do not form part of
the comparison on the grounds that they are required for technical reasons (Rexel Developpements SAS v.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-02-20 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that:
(i) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Mark. The Complainant submits that the domain
name incorporates the entirety of the Mark and adds the term “cdn”, which the Complainant states is a
commonly used abbreviation for “content delivery network”, a service the Complainant offers and which its
trade mark registrations cover. ...If you want I can transfer the domain name to you.”
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2025-04-29 - 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 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...
2025-04-28 - Case Details
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its mark, incorporating it in
full, with the addition of the descriptive term “life”, which, rather than dispelling confusion, may reinforce the
association with the brand.
...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. ...
2025-07-21 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark,
that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name, and that
the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...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. ...
2025-07-17 - 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...
2025-06-16 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
The Panel shall now proceed to the analysis of the evidence in this case and shall decide if the Complainant
has satisfied the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
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...
2025-06-10 - 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 or Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-05-23 - 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...
2024-05-07 - Case Details
The entirety of the Trade Mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed
domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark 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...
2025-04-17 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent did not reply to 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...
2025-05-05 - Case Details