Her official social media page on Instagram has 6.6 million followers,
and the one on Facebook has 4.4 million followers, while her official page on Spotify has more than 4 million
monthly listeners. The Complainant operates her of f icial online store at the domain name
, where of f icial music and authorized merchandise are of fered for sale.
...As discussed in the previous section, the disputed domain name carries a high risk of implied af f iliation with
the Complainant, and the Respondent has used it for a website that claimed to be an “Erykah Badu Off icial
Fan Site” and offered for sale ERYKAH BADU-branded goods that were referred to as the Complainant’s
“Of f icial Fan Merch”. ...
2025-05-12 - Case Details
Furthermore, the
Complainant explains that it appears f rom the UDRP decisions that the Respondent reveals a pattern of
conduct whereby it registers domain names corresponding to recently f iled European Union or other
trademark applications.
...Further, the gTLD “.com” is a standard registration requirement and does not prevent the disputed domain
name f rom being identical to the COL2V Trademark. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1.
The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
...
2025-12-05 - Case Details
Adding the descriptive term “help” does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity.
page 3
Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant, and he is not af f iliated with Complainant in any way.
...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
Domain Name does not prevent a f inding of bad faith in the circumstances of this proceeding. ...
2023-12-14 - Case Details
Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s trademark.
For the reason mentioned above, the Panel f inds that the f irst element has been established.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
On the basis of the record as set out above, the Panel f inds that the Complainant has made the required
allegations to support a prima facie case showing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in
the disputed domain name. ...C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel f inds that there is suf f icient evidence to f ind bad faith in this case.
The Panel f inds that it is unlikely the Respondent did not know about the Complainant prior to registering the
disputed domain name. ...
2023-11-24 - Case Details
Although the addition of the Top-Level-Domain (“TLD”) “.company” may bear on assessment of the second
and third elements, the Panel f inds the addition of such word does not prevent a f inding of confusing
similarity between the Domain Name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...Having reviewed the available
record, 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. ...
2024-07-03 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel f inds that the Complainant has established that the disputed domain name is
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and the requirement under the f irst limb of the Policy is
satisf ied.
...Accordingly, the Panel f inds that the
adoption of the company name does not qualify as being in good faith under the Policy suf f icient to confer
rights or legitimate interests on the basis of paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy.
...
2025-12-29 - Case Details
The addition of the term “-service” in the Domain Name does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity
between the Domain Name and the HOERBIGER trademark. Panels have consistently held that where the
relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether
descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a f inding of confusing
similarity under the f irst element. ...In sum, the Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy
has been established.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Under the second element, the Complainant must prove that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests in the Domain Name.
...
2025-07-28 - Case Details
The Complainant1 owns European Union (“EU”) Trade Mark No. 018092420 for TICTAC, f iled on July 9,
2019, published on July 26, 2019, registered on November 2, 2019, in classes 9, 16, 38, 41, 42 (“the
Complainant’s Mark”).
...The Respondent owns the following Mexican trade marks for TIC TAC LEARN plus design (“the
Respondent’s Logo”):
- No. 2295470, f iled on June 28, 2021, and registered on September 7, 2021, in class 45;
- No. 2331321, f iled on September 17, 2021, and registered on November 26, 2021, in class 35; and
- No. 2341630, f iled on September 17, 2021, and registered on January 7, 2022, in class 41.
...
2025-05-05 - Case Details
The Complainant submitted evidence that the Complainant’s Trademarks have been
registered in United States as of April 5, 2022, with earliest priority dating back to March 23, 2016. Thus, the
Panel f inds that the Complainant’s rights in the Complainant’s Trademarks have been established pursuant
to the f irst element of the Policy.
...gTLDs, such as “.click” in the disputed domain name, are generally viewed as a standard registration
requirement and are disregarded under the f irst element. WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 1.9 and 1.11.
The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
...
2026-01-30 - Case Details
There are no exceptional circumstances within paragraph 5(f ) of the Rules to prevent the Panel f rom
determining the dispute based upon the Complaint, notwithstanding the failure of the Respondent to f ile a
Response. ...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
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.
...
2025-12-29 - Case Details
Factual Background
The Complainant is a French company founded in 1976 specializing in the f ield of f ruit desserts.
The Complainant’s official webpage is available at the domain name , registered on
December 14, 2010, as well as , registered on July 17, 2012. ...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.
...
2025-12-04 - Case Details
Although the addition of other terms (here, “agi”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements,
the Panel f inds the addition of such a term 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.
...
2024-03-13 - Case Details
Factual Background
The Complainant is a company based in the Netherlands (Kingdom of the) and was founded as International
Market makers Combination in 1989. It is internationally active in the f ield of providing f inancial services,
particularly in offering trading solutions on the basis of data and algorithms. ...Although the addition of other terms, here “app” 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
disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2024-02-07 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends as follows:
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ARKEMA trademark in which the Complainant has
rights, because it incorporates this trademark in its entirety, and the addition of the geographic term “f r”,
which stands for “France”, is not suf f icient to prevent a f inding of confusing similarity.
...This creates a risk that unsuspecting recipients would remit payment to the wrong account or ship
goods to an address unaf f iliated with the Complainant af ter receiving the f raudulent emails sent by the
Respondent.
...
2024-01-03 - Case Details
The mere addition of a hyphen in the disputed domain name does not disturb this f inding.
The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.1/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.1/
page 3
B. .../George R. F. Souter/
George R. F. Souter
Sole Panelist
Date: February 25, 2026
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.1/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.1/
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
1. ...
2026-03-02 - Case Details
The disputed domain name was registered on April 27, 2025. At the time of f iling of the Complaint, the
disputed domain name redirected to Complainant’s main corporate website. ...Complainant notes
that the disputed domain name omits the ampersand in the CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD Mark, which
Complainant asserts is insuf f icient to distinguish the disputed domain name f rom the CUSHMAN &
WAKEFIELD Marks, and adds the generic Top-Level Domain “.works”, which should be disregarded in the
analysis under the f irst element of the Policy.
...
2025-09-25 - Case Details
The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trade mark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.
The Panel f inds the mark is recognisable within the disputed domain name, as they are identical apart f rom
the substitution of “a” for “e”. Furthermore, a domain name that consists of a common, obvious, or
intentional misspelling of a trade mark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark
for purposes of the f irst element. This stems f rom the fact that the domain name contains suf f iciently
recognisable aspects of the relevant mark. ...
2024-05-02 - Case Details
The Complainant conf irms that the Respondent has no authorization, licence, or permission to use the
CENTERPOINT ENERGY trademarks and that there is no af f iliation or relationship between them.
The Respondent has misused the disputed domain name to direct it to a webpage f illed with links to other
websites. ...These actions could easily mislead recipients into believing the emails originated f rom the
Complainant.
The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.
...
2024-10-23 - Case Details
Although the addition of other terms here, “loja” 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
disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...The Panel f inds that the Respondent
registered the disputed domain name with the purpose of intentionally attempting to create a likelihood of
confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the disputed domain name’s source, sponsorship,
af f iliation or endorsement. ...
2024-11-06 - Case Details
Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes that Respondent targeted Complainant in each of
the disputed domain names, and f inds that in 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.
The Panel f inds that Complainant has established the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. 1
7. ...
2024-11-04 - Case Details