The Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations for ORNUA, including the following, as per
trademark registration certif icates submitted in Annex 4 to the Complaint:
- European Union trademark registration No. 013558143 for ORNUA (word mark), f iled on December
12, 2014, and registered on May 8, 2015, in international classes 29, 35, and 42;
- European Union trademark registration No. 013558184 for ORNUA (f igurative mark), f iled on
December 12, 2014, and registered on May 8, 2015, in international classes 29, 35, and 42;
- International trademark registration No. 1310691 for ORNUA (word mark), registered on June 21,
2016, in classes 1 and 29.
...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
The applicable TLD in a domain name, such as the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” in this case,
is viewed as a standard registration requirement and is thus disregarded under the f irst element confusing
similarity test. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1.
Therefore, the Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
...
2024-10-15 - Case Details
International trademark registration number 900154 for LACTALIS (f igurative mark) registered on July 27,
2006, in classes 29, 30 and 35.
Colombian trademark registration number 484725 for LACTALIS (f igurative mark) registered on
December 24, 2013, in class 29.
...As such,
the ccTLD “.co” in the disputed domain name is disregarded for the purposes of the f irst element confusing
similarity test.
The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
...
2025-08-20 - 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.
...However, the
Respondent’s failure to file a Response may result in the Panel drawing appropriate inferences f rom such
default. The Panel may also accept all reasonable and supported allegations and inferences f lowing f rom
the Complainant as true (see Entertainment Shopping AG v. ...
2025-08-18 - Case Details
The email attached an invoice f rom the
Complainant for USD 108,462.32 for a purchase order that was “delivered this morning” and asked to have a
purchase order sent again by return email, apparently in an attempt to gather payment information f rom the
customer. ...Accordingly, the Panel f inds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the
purposes of the Policy. ...
2024-07-03 - Case Details
Complainants further state that this deceptive use exploits
users’ trust in Complainants’ brand and may mislead them into disclosing sensitive f inancial information or
making unauthorized payments, thereby posing a signif icant risk of phishing or f raud. ...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 Domain Name.
...
2025-08-07 - Case Details
Ignoring the country code Top-Level Domain “.io”, the Domain Name is identical to the Mark. Accordingly,
the Panel f inds that the Domain Name is identical to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights, and
the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
...Such activity, no doubt with a view to commercial gain, amounts to paradigm bad faith
use for the purposes of the Policy.
Accordingly, the Panel f inds that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Panel f inds that the third element of the Policy has been established.
7. ...
2025-06-30 - Case Details
In conclusion on this topic, the Panel finds that the Complainant has not proved that the disputed domain
name was registered in bad faith. That f inding renders the question of use in bad faith moot. Accordingly,
based on the available record, the Panel f inds the third element of the Policy has not been established.
...It is generally accepted
that mere lack of success of a complaint is not itself suf f icient for such a f inding.
Here, the Respondent asserts that the Panel should f ind Reverse Domain Name Hijacking because the
disputed domain name was registered before the Complainant had secured international trademark rights,
and the Complainant knew that there was no bad faith intent on the part of the Respondent. ...
2023-10-16 - Case Details
The Respondent is not using the disputed domain names in connection with any bona f ide
of fering of goods or services. The Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant. The Respondent is not
af f iliated with the Complainant in any way. ...The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name misleads
consumers into thinking that the website is operated by or af f iliated with the Complainant. As such, the
Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name cannot be considered bona f ide.
...
2025-04-28 - Case Details
Thus, the Panel f inds that the Complainant’s rights in the VIZIO trademark have been established pursuant
to the f irst element of the Policy.
...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. ...
2025-08-27 - Case Details
The following chronology is largely drawn f rom the documents f iled by the Parties:
On June 19, 2020, the Respondent was incorporated.
...The proposal does include an organizational chart or f low chart identifying certain individuals as
being f rom “Nexus Point”. On the basis of the sending of the emails, therefore, it could be that the
Respondent was using the term “Nexus Point”.
...
2025-08-27 - Case Details
On November 3, 2023, the Center received an email f rom the Respondent. On November 8, 2023, the
Center received an unrequested Additional Submission f rom the Complainant.
The Response was f iled with the Center on November 19, 2023.
page 2
The Center appointed Warwick A. Rothnie as the sole panelist in this matter on November 30, 2023. ...
2023-12-20 - 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.
...Accordingly, the Panel 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.
...
2025-12-24 - Case Details
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.
...The Panel f inds
that, under these circumstances, the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a
f inding of bad faith under the Policy.
...
2024-03-11 - Case Details
Although the addition of “llc” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel f inds the
addition does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark
for the purposes of the Policy. ...Other panels have found that the non-use of a domain name, including a webpage displaying a “launching
soon” message, does not prevent a f inding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO
Overview 3.0, section 3.3. In the present case, the Panel f inds that the passive holding of the disputed
domain name does not prevent such a f inding here. ...
2025-08-27 - Case Details
Procedural ef f iciency would also underpin panel consideration of such a consolidation
scenario.” (see in this regard also prior UDRP decisions such as Speedo Holdings B.V. v. ...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.
...
2024-02-22 - Case Details
Il dirige vers un site marchand :
- rédigé en f rançais,
- indiquant dans ses mentions légales qu’il serait édité par une société f rançaise,
- arborant de manière proéminente la marque semi-f igurative du Requérant,
- prétendant commercialiser des chaussures de marques notoirement connues à prix réduits.
...Conformément aux Règles
d’application, paragraphe 11(a), en l’absence d’un accord entre les parties, ou en l’absence d’une mention
contraire au contrat d’enregistrement, la langue de procédure doit être la langue du contrat d’enregistrement.
La Plainte a été déposée en f rançais. Le Requérant a demandé que la langue de procédure soit le f rançais
pour plusieurs raisons, incluant notamment le fait que :
- selon les informations communiquées par l’Unité d’enregistrement, le Défendeur apparait localisé en
France et disposé d’un numéro de téléphone f rançais,
- le nom de domaine litigieux est constitué de termes f rançais,
- le site Internet accessible via le nom de domaine litigieux est rédigé en f rançais,
- ledit site Internet contient des mentions légales indiquant que son éditeur est une société f rançaise.
...
2024-08-05 - Case Details
The Respondent has used the disputed
domain name to operate a website purporting to sell clothing. At the time of f iling of the Complaint, the
website prominently used the SUPPLY & DEMAND mark and of fered links for purchasing SUPPLY &
DEMAND-branded products, and included a notice that it participated in the Amazon af f iliate advertising
program, thus monetizing traf f ic via af f iliate links to Amazon platform.
...The site promotes
identical goods and features af f iliate links, including to Amazon, f rom which the Respondent derives
commercial gain. It also includes misleading content such as fabricated reviews, falsely implying af f iliation
with the Complainant. ...
2025-12-05 - Case Details
Such
f raudulent impersonation and passing of f constitute evidence of bad faith under the Policy.
...Further, according to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences f rom the
Respondent’s failure to submit a response as it considers appropriate.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the f irst element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2025-12-22 - Case Details
A domain name, which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional
misspelling of a trademark, is considered by UDRP panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark 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.
...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.
...
2023-12-20 - Case Details
Such a composition carries a risk of implied af f iliation with the
Complainant and cannot lead to a f inding that the Respondent had rights or legitimate interests in the
disputed domain name. ...Based on the available record, the Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established.
The Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established.
...
2024-03-11 - Case Details