Under paragraph 4 (a) of the Policy, Complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) the domain name in issue is identical or confusingly similar to complainant’s
trademark or service mark;
(ii) respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain
name; and,
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Numerous WIPO decisions in this connection
have ruled that the fact that a trademark is incorporated in its entirety, is
per se sufficient to establish that the domain name is identical or confusingly
similar to the registered trademark (see amongst others Nokia Corporation
v. Phonestop, WIPO Case No. ...
2002-08-06 - Case Details
page 3
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...
2023-08-07 - 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 has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...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 and registration.
...
2023-07-27 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant states that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Mark as it contains
Complainant’s Mark in its entirety, with the addition of a hyphen and the trade mark MONTBLANC, which
belongs to a third party, namely Montblanc-Simplo GmbH. ...Discussion and Findings
For the reasons set out below the Panel finds for Complainant.
page 4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant asserts it is a large, well-known, tyre manufacturer that has operated for approximately 150
years and has an international footprint and reputation. ...
2023-07-24 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or clearly
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks as it fully incorporates the Complainant’s marks and trade
name “GEA” and even the name of the company “GEA Group”. ...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. ...
2023-07-24 - 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...
2023-08-04 - Case Details
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules directs the Panel to decide the 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.
page 3
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.
The Panel considers that the disputed domain name is a clear case of typosquatting. ...
2023-07-31 - Case Details
The
fact that the disputed domain name includes the term “co” does nothing to diminish confusion, quite the
contrary: confusion is enhanced by the addition of “co”, since it is the abbreviation for “corporation”. Thus
the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the CORNING and CORNING WARE trademarks in
which the Complainant has rights.
...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. ...
2026-06-25 - 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...
2026-06-24 - Case Details
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.
Accordingly, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-05-01 - 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...
2025-05-07 - 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...
2025-05-05 - 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.
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...
2025-04-22 - 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...
2025-07-21 - Case Details
page 3
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.1 It is generally 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 and Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-07-17 - 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...
2025-07-16 - Case Details
For the evaluation of this case, the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0, and, where appropriate,
will decide consistently with the consensus views stated therein.
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...
2026-01-23 - Case Details
WIPO Overview 3.0,
section 4.4.5; in a case involving a privacy service, a panel has discretion to determine the appropriate
respondent.
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...
2026-01-22 - Case Details
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-01-20 - Case Details
In view of the foregoing, the Panel rules as follows.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The available records confirm the existence of registered rights to the CASHLIB marks. ...Hence, in the Panel's view, the first element of the Policy has been satisfied, because the disputed domain
name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
To the Panel's mind, the Complainant has presented a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or
legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and has not been commonly known by it.
...
2026-01-20 - Case Details