This
combination strongly suggests an intent to trade of f the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant by
misleading users into believing that the disputed domain name is af f iliated with or endorsed by the
Complainant.
...The Respondent registered the disputed domain name about seven years af ter the Complainant’s
trademark registration;
ii. A note reading “we earn commissions f rom qualifying transactions through the af f iliate marketing
program” appears on the Respondent website, falsely suggesting the Respondent’s affiliation with the
Complainant;
iii. ...
2025-08-29 - Case Details
Factual Background
The Complainant in this administrative proceeding, Haleon UK IP Limited, formerly GlaxoSmithKline
Consumer Healthcare (UK) IP Limited, is a British multinational consumer healthcare company established in
July 2022 as a corporate spin-of f f rom GSK plc.
The Complainant is one of the world’s largest consumer healthcare companies. ...Having reviewed the available record, the Panel
notes that the Complainant has provided evidence regarding the reputation of its trademark. The
Respondent did not f ile a Response to the Complaint. Considering the degree of distinctiveness or
reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, the composition of the disputed domain name, the Panel f inds
the non-use of the disputed domain name does not prevent a f inding of bad faith in the circumstances of this
proceeding.
...
2025-08-14 - Case Details
It does not currently resolve to a website. Respondent
has been using the Domain Name in a f raudulent scheme. That scheme includes posting fake job openings
to solicit applicants for positions advertised as if they were with Complainant. ...The sole
dif ference between the Domain Name and the Mark is that the former eliminates the letter “s” f rom the
FOURKITES Mark. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9.
The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
...
2024-08-05 - Case Details
Factual Background
The Complainant is a Belgian company. It was founded in 1986 as a spin-of f f rom a Belgian university.
Its name is an acronym for “ion beam application”. It is a manufacturer of specialized medical equipment.
...The Panel cannot see that this possible one day delay in
f iling the Response has caused any prejudice to the Complainant and (assuming it was f iled late) the Panel
exercises its discretion to admit the Response.
...
2023-10-20 - Case Details
The Complaint refers to “sponsored listings” to third parties, but
the Panel f inds no evidence of these in the furnished screenshots. The site proposed broadly described
network security services for USD 9,000 or USD 16,000 and encouraged visitors to email the site operator or
to call a toll-f ree telephone number. ...The absence of an
explanation from the Respondent as to the registration and use of the disputed domain name supports this
f inding.
The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.
7. ...
2025-12-29 - Case Details
Accordingly, the disputed domain
name is identical to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Because Complainant has manifestly failed to establish that Respondent registered and used the disputed
domain name in bad faith, the Panel need not make a f inding regarding whether Complainant has
established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...Respondent could
not have been required to foresee that at some point substantially following its registration of the disputed
domain name a third party would seek to assert rights in the combination of common terms in the disputed
domain name so as to preclude Respondent f rom undertaking its initial registration.
The evidence in the case f ile as presented does not indicate that Respondent’s aim in registering the
disputed domain name was to prof it f rom or exploit the Complainant’s trademark.
...
2025-04-11 - Case Details
The Complainant owns several trademark registrations, including:
- United States Trademark Registration no. 4814856 for BREAD, f iled on December 15, 2014,
registered on September 15, 2015, for the services in class 36;
- United States Trademark Registration no. 7237587 for BREAD SAVINGS, f iled on March 9, 2022,
registered on December 5, 2023, for the services in class 36;
- United States Trademark Registration no. 7300264 for BREAD FINANCIAL, f iled on December 13,
2021, registered on February 6, 2024, for the services in class 36;
- United States Trademark Registration no. 7305646 for BREAD FINANCIAL, f iled on December 14,
2021, registered on February 13, 2024, for the services in class 42.
...These marks are widely recognized in connection
with banking, credit card, lending, and f inancial services, and have accrued substantial goodwill. The
disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BREAD FINANCIAL mark, dif fering only
by the omission of a letter “n” in the word “f inancial”. ...
2025-09-16 - Case Details
Although the addition of other terms, here adding a hyphen (or dash) between “Lincoln” and “electric”, adding
“al” to electric,1 and adding “company” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel
f inds the addition of such terms does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity between the disputed
domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.
The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate
rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.
...
2025-09-08 - Case Details
Accordingly, the
Center notif ied Respondent’s default on September 23, 2024.
The Center appointed Gabriel F. Leonardos as the sole panelist in this matter on September 26, 2024. The
Panel f inds that it was properly constituted. ...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 f inds that the disputed domain name is identical and, thus, confusingly similar to Complainant´s
trademark BODOG, with the sole addition of the word “apostas”, that translates to “bets” f rom Portuguese,
separated by a hyphen, which does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity between the disputed
domain name and Complainant’s trademark.
...
2024-10-14 - Case Details
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. However, the Panel f inds that the “E” device mark is not
suf ficiently distinctive to provide a basis for a f inding of confusing similarity with the disputed domain name in
these circumstances.
...Such a composition carries a risk of implied af f iliation with the Complainant, which is inconsistent with a
f inding that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...
2024-11-01 - Case Details
WIPO Overview 3.0,
section 1.8.
The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate
rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.
...Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity such as, phishing, distributing malware,
impersonation/passing of f , or other types of f raud can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a
respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.
...
2024-06-14 - Case Details
The domain accurately discloses that the registrant is not af f iliated with
the Complainant. A disclaimer stating “Not af f iliated with Tesla, Inc.” is prominently displayed on every
page 4
subdomain, page, and tab. ...Therefore, the Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate
rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.
...
2024-02-07 - Case Details
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.
Based on the available record, the Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate
rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.
...case=D2014-0365
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2010/d2010-0260.html
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 8
and the Respondent’s lack of rebuttal to the Complainant’s contentions, and f inds that under the
circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed domain names does not prevent a f inding of
bad faith under the Policy.
...
2023-12-13 - Case Details
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.
The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate
rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.
...The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.
...
2025-08-29 - Case Details
The Top-Level Domain suffix in respect of the disputed domain name, here, “.com”, is typically disregarded
under the f irst element test. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1.
The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
...The Panel invites the Complainant to take note of these observations should it wish to make future f ilings
under the Policy.
The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.
7. ...
2025-05-12 - Case Details
Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not
prevent a f inding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. The Panel f inds the non-use of the
Domain Name does not prevent a f inding of bad faith in the circumstances of this proceeding. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that in the circumstances of this case, the passive holding of the
Domain Name does not prevent a f inding of bad faith under the Policy.
The Panel f inds that Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.
7. ...
2024-03-11 - Case Details
Under the circumstances,
the non-use of the disputed domain name cannot support a f inding of rights or legitimate interests.
The Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established.
...Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a f inding of bad faith under the
doctrine of passive holding. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel f inds the non-use of the
disputed domain name does not prevent a f inding of bad faith in the circumstances of this proceeding.
...
2024-02-19 - Case Details
According to the Complainant, the Respondent
is using the disputed domain name to market and sell products identical to those of the Complainant, while
copying content, visual elements and contact details f rom the Complainant’s of f icial website, thereby
misleading consumers into believing that the website is af f iliated with or operated by the Complainant.
...The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate
rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.
...
2026-01-29 - Case Details
Respondent
The Center received communications from email addresses connected to the disputed domain name and
f rom an entity presenting itself as the Respondent’s representative. Given the assertions, the Panel will treat
the contentions together as coming f rom the “Respondent”.
...The Respondent provided no explanation
why it could not comply with this time limit and why its supplemental f iling should be admitted at this late
stage. In view of this, the Respondent’s supplemental f iling should normally not be admitted in the
proceeding. ...
2023-10-30 - Case Details
Complainant
asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ELLE Mark because the disputed domain
name clearly incorporates Complainant’s ELLE Mark in its entirety, followed by the term “india” and the Top-
Level Domain (“TLD”) “.com”, neither of which is suf f icient to prevent a f inding of confusing similarity.
Complainant submits that there are no rights or legitimate interests held by Respondent in respect of the
disputed domain name. ...Accordingly, the
Panel f inds the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the ELLE Mark in which Complainant has rights
and Complainant has thus satisf ied its burden under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2025-09-12 - Case Details