The Respondents are Name Redacted, and Name Redacted 0 F
1.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain names and are registered with
Squarespace Domains II LLC (the “Registrar”). 1 F
2
3. ...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 non-exclusive list of circumstances that may indicate the
Respondent’s rights to or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. ...
2023-10-16 - Case Details
While the addition of other terms, here “meds”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements,
the Panel f inds the addition of such term does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity between the
Domain Name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...As such, the Panel f inds
that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in relation to the Domain Name.
...
2023-11-02 - Case Details
page 2
The Panel has not received any requests f rom the Complainant or the Respondent regarding further
submissions, waivers or extensions of deadlines, and the Panel has not found it necessary to request any
further information f rom the Parties.
...The Complainant also operates on the Internet, its of f icial website being at “www.theleela.com”.
The Complainant provided evidence in support of the above.
...
2024-03-06 - Case Details
Instead, the Respondent was using the
disputed domain name to divert Internet traf f ic to a website that prominently displays the Complainant’s
marks and purports to be a crypto trading f irm operating under the Complainant’s name and marks. ...Furthermore, the composition of the disputed domain name directly targeting the Complainant’s f ield of
activity enhances the false impression that the disputed domain name is somehow of f icially related to the
Complainant and an of f icial website promoting the Complainant’s business. ...
2023-12-04 - 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
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
Nederman & Co., a Swedish company offering products and services in the f ield
of air f iltration.
It owns a number of trademark registrations formed with the name NEDERMAN, such as:
Swedish trademark: NEDERMAN Reg. ...The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.
...
2026-04-24 - 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
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
The disputed domain name registered April 1, 2025, does not point to an active web site, but has been used
for a f raudulent email scheme using the Complainant’s mark in its logo form.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. ...The disputed domain name has not been pointed to an active web site, but has been used for a f raudulent
email scheme impersonating the Complainant using the Complainant’s mark in its logo form. ...
2026-04-24 - 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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