Further, the Domain
Name uses Complainant’s GOOD MYTHICAL MORNING Mark on each webpage and claims to be the
“of f icial” GOOD MYTHICAL MORNING merchandise store. Thus, it should be presumed that the only
reason Respondent selected the Domain Name was because it was substantially similar to Complainant’s
GOOD MYTHICAL MORNING Mark and would cause consumers to believe Respondent is af f iliated with
Complainant.
...It can thus be concluded that
Respondent is seeking to capitalize of f of the success and reputation of Complainant and to cause
page 3
consumers to purchase inferior goods f rom Respondent’s website instead of authentic goods f rom
Complainant’s website.
...
2023-10-30 - Case Details
The Domain Names include the earlier Complainant’s Trade Marks and differ only by the addition of the word
“of f”. Adding descriptive, generic or geographic terms to a trademark in a domain name is not suf f icient to
avoid misleading Internet users and to avoid creating a likelihood and confusion with the Trade Marks, which
clearly stand out in the Domain Names. ...In addition, the Respondent’s use of the Domain Names does not constitute a bona fide
of fering of goods or services. The f irst Domain Name resolves to a website which, using the Trade Marks,
creates the false impression of a relationship with or authorization of its services by the Complainant, while it
does not contain a disclaimer or clarif ication with respect to the non-existence of such af f iliation. ...
2025-08-27 - 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 fact that the website to which the First Disputed Domain Name resolved was disabled af ter the f iling of
the initial Complaint, and the Second Disputed Domain Name registered shortly thereaf ter, resolving to a
website substantially similar to the f irst, further supports a f inding of bad faith.
...
2025-04-22 - Case Details
WIPO Overview
3.0, section 1.7.
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.
...Having reviewed the available
record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainants’ trademarks, and the
composition of the disputed domain name, and f inds that in the circumstances of this case the passive
holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a f inding of bad faith under the Policy.
...
2023-12-14 - Case Details
It also notes that these modified versions are not available on of f icial app stores and
must be downloaded f rom third-party sources, including the Respondent’s website.
...Accordingly, the Panel f inds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
WHATSAPP trademark.
...
2025-12-04 - Case Details
It is accepted
that where the relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, adding other terms
(whether descriptive, geographical, meaningless or otherwise) does not negate a f inding of bad faith under
the f irst element. Moreover, adding the term “site” contributes to the likelihood of confusion between the
Mark and the Domain Name. ...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.
...
2025-04-23 - Case Details
Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (here, claimed phishing,
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.
...In these circumstances, the current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not preclude a
f inding of bad faith under the Policy.
The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.
7. ...
2025-12-04 - Case Details
By displaying the Complainant’s logo
and incorporating a substantial part of its trademark into the domain name, the Respondent misleads
consumers into believing that the inaccurate and incomplete nutritional information is of f icial and reliable.
The Respondent is exploiting the Complainant’s trademark to drive traf f ic to the disputed domain name,
ultimately prof iting f rom the association with the Complainant’s brand.
...The disputed domain name
incorporates the Complainant’s well-known PANDA EXPRESS trademark (omitting only the f inal “s”). The
unauthorized use of the Complainant’s mark on the website the disputed domain name resolved to supports
a f inding of bad faith.
...
2025-05-16 - Case Details
The Complainant also submits that the Respondent has
put substantial effort in replicating the Complainant’s Website with an intention of passing of f and has used
the Disputed Domain Name to confuse customers as to the operator of the Respondent’s Website, with a
view to unfairly leveraging of f the Complainant’s brand.
...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 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.
...
2025-04-15 - Case Details
The incorporation of this trademark followed by the geographical term “Mexico” suggests an
af f iliation with the Complainant and its trademark indicating that it may probably be referred to its of f icial
website for the Mexican market.
...In this respect, the Panel notes the
distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, and the composition of the disputed domain
name, and f inds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed domain name
does not prevent a f inding of bad faith under the Policy.
...
2024-01-25 - Case Details
Complainant submitted evidence that the VALEO trademarks have been registered in
numerous jurisdictions with priority dating back to at least as early as April 14, 1966. Thus, the Panel f inds
that Complainant’s rights in the VALEO trademarks have been established pursuant to the f irst element of
the Policy.
...D2013-2035, citing New Kids on
the Block v. News American Publishing, Inc., 971 F.2d 302 (9th Cir. 1992) and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A.,
Inc. v. Tabari, 610 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2010).
...
2024-02-07 - Case Details
The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is solely to drive web
traf f ic for pay-per-click (“PPC”) and pop-up advertising, which is not a legitimate interest under the Policy;
(3) the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. ...The disputed domain name incorporates the
Complainant’s mark in its entirety, and the record indicates that the Respondent was aware of the
Complainant and its trademark rights at the time of registration. The Panel f inds that the Respondent
registered the disputed domain name with the intent to impersonate the Complainant and trade of f the
reputation and goodwill of the OFF BROADWAY marks.
...
2025-10-07 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s default on August 26, 2025.
page 2
The Center appointed George R. F. Souter as the sole panelist in this matter on August 29, 2025. The Panel
f inds that it was properly constituted. ...trademark in mind, and f inds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.
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. ...
2025-09-18 - Case Details
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.
The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 4
B. ...Finally, the Panel notes that the Respondent is a renown “serial” cybersquatter which further reinforces the
Panel’s bad faith f inding.
The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.
7. ...
2024-04-24 - Case Details
The Parties
The Complainant is Accuserve Solutions, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by
Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronof f , LLP, United States.
The Respondents are Kayley Crosby, United States / Name Redacted 0 F
1.
2. ...The generic terms “jobs” and “careers” does not prevent a f inding of confusing
similarity.
The Complainant argues that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain
names. ...
2023-12-20 - Case Details
Complainant has a worldwide consent of use of the name Pasteur
f rom its rights holder.
Complainant is the owner of SANOFI trademark registrations worldwide including, inter alia:
- the French trademark registration no. 96655339 for SANOFI (f igurative), filed and registered on December
11, 1996, for goods and services in international classes 01, 03, 05, 09, 10, 35, 40, and 42;
- the European Union Trade Mark registration no. 000596023 for SANOFI, f iled on July 15, 1997, and
registered on February 1, 1999, for goods in International classes 03 and 05;
- the French trademark registration no. 3831592 for SANOFI (f igurative), f iled and registered on May 16,
2011, for goods and services in international classes 01, 03, 05, 09, 10, 16, 35, 38, 40, 41, 42, and 44, and
- the International trademark registration no. 1092811 for SANOFI, registered on August 11, 2011, for goods
in international classes 03 and 05.
...D2017-0275).
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 Respondent may demonstrate rights or
legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.
...
2023-12-05 - Case Details
As the umbrella
association it brings together some 260 member-institutions and more than 11,000 individual members f rom
the various bank categories and other f inancial services providers. The Complainant represents
Switzerland’s f inancial center’s interests vis-à-vis politicians, authorities, and the general public.
...The Panel also finds the disputed domain name consists of intentional misspelling of the Complainant’s
trademark, thus it is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark for purposes of the f irst element.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9.
Based on the available record, the Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
...
2023-10-06 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is used to host a website copying the Complainant’s of f icial website by using
trademarks and copyright protected materials without authorization. This is clearly an act of impersonation
as if they are the of f icial distributor of the Complainant’s products.
...It has also been established by prior UDRP panels that incorporating a trademark in its entirety into a domain
name can be suf f icient to establish that the domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark. Such
f indings were conf irmed, for example, within WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. ...
2023-10-18 - Case Details
On July 28, 2025, the Center received an email
communication f rom an email address dif ferent f rom the Registrar’s conf irmed email address of the
Respondent (the “July 28 email”). ...Furthermore, the Panel considers that the composition of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied
af f iliation with the Complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1.
The Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established.
...
2025-09-08 - Case Details
Paragraph 14(b) of the Rules provides that, in the absence of exceptional
circumstances, the panel shall draw such inferences as it considers appropriate f rom a failure of a party to
comply with a provision or requirement of the Rules. The Panel f inds that in this case there are no such
exceptional circumstances.
...WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 1.7 and 1.8.
The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 4
B. ...
2026-01-28 - Case Details