Factual Background
The Complainant is Arkema France, a French company, present in 55 countries and a leading company in
the f ield of material science, offering a wide range of products (e.g., paints, adhesives, coats, glues, f ibers,
resins as well as rough and f inished materials). ...Furthermore, the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD “) “.com” is viewed as a standard
registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the f irst element and has no ef fect in the
confusing similarity test. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1
The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
...
2024-07-08 - Case Details
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
The Panel f inds 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.
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.
...
2023-10-05 - Case Details
Respondent also prepared and sent f raudulent purchase orders impersonating Complainant in order to
secure shipments of products ordered.
...In the present case, the Panel notes that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in
connection with a f raudulent and illegal scheme to impersonate Complainant for the purposes of
Respondent’s illegal f inancial benef it.
...
2024-01-22 - Case Details
Factual Background
The Complainants are ship owners and operators, and their f leet have moved tons of cargo and works
globally with major organizations, f rom charterers to shipping professionals, regulatory authorities and
governments. ...The additional word “shiping” does
not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity under the f irst element.
Several UDRP panels have ruled that the mere addition of a descriptive element does not suf f iciently
dif ferentiate a disputed domain name f rom a complainant’s registered trademark.
...
2025-05-12 - Case Details
Complainant incorporates Complainant’s Mark into its Logo further distinguishing its of ferings
f rom others, particularly on social media.
According to the publicly available WhoIs the Domain Name was registered on December 20, 2023 and as at
the date of the Complaint resolved to a webpage impersonating Complainant and diverting traf f ic to
Respondent’s website for commercial gain.
5. ...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 Respondent may demonstrate rights or
legitimate interests in a Domain Name.
...
2025-04-08 - Case Details
Although the addition of other terms (here, “-ca”) 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 Complainant further contends that the Respondent does not make any bona f ide use – neither
commercial nor noncommercial – of the disputed domain name.
The Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established.
...
2025-12-04 - Case Details
The Complainant has been using the REEF brand since as early as 1984. The Complainant and/or its
af f iliates sell their REEF branded products, in particular casual sandals, known as f lip-f lops, through the
website to which the domain name registered by the Complainant, , resolves.
...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.
...
2026-02-05 - Case Details
Today it is India's largest automobile company. The Complainant is among
the top f ive commercial vehicle manufacturers in the world. It has f ranchisee/joint venture assembly
operations in dif ferent countries, among them Bangladesh, where the Respondent is located.
...The Respondent has registered
the Domain Name to divert traf f ic f rom the Complainant’s websites.
The Complainant argues among other that Respondent must have had knowledge of the Complainant when
the Respondent registered the Domain Name. ...
2023-12-14 - Case Details
Although the addition of other term, here “hanoi”, 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. ...However, it is well proven and evidenced by the Panel that the website
under the Disputed Domain Name used to offer for sale furniture f ittings bearing the Complainant’s BLUM
trademark and advertised such products using product images and other copyright protected material f rom
the Complainant’s of f icial website.
...
2025-06-06 - 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.
...Further, according to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel may draw f rom the lack of response of the
Respondent such inference as it considers appropriate. The Panel is of the view that the lack of response
f rom the Respondent corroborates the absence of any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the
disputed domain names.
...
2025-04-14 - Case Details
In this regard, the
use of a disputed domain name for illegal or f raudulent activity such as phishing or passing
of f /impersonation, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent.
...Fernando Camacho Bohm, WIPO Case No. D2010-1552. The f raudulent emails also contained the
Complainant’s stylized mark in their signature blocks and letterhead.
...
2023-12-13 - Case Details
WIPO Overview 3.0, section
1.11.1.
Therefore, the Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 6(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate
rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.
...Moreover, there is no element f rom which the Panel could infer the Respondent’s rights and legitimate
interests over the disputed domain names, or that the Respondent might be commonly known by the
disputed domain names.
...
2024-03-06 - Case Details
Although the addition of other terms, here “nonprod” and the hyphen, 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. ...The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to Complainant’s of f icial
website indicates a deliberate attempt to confuse consumers into believing that the disputed domain name is
af f iliated with or sponsored by the Complainant. ...
2025-08-14 - 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.
...Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., the sale of counterfeit goods or
illegal pharmaceuticals, phishing, distributing malware, unauthorised account access/hacking,
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.
...
2024-07-19 - 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/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 4
B. ...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. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the
Panel notes the distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant’s trademarks, the composition of the
disputed domain name, and the Respondent’s prior use of the disputed domain name, and f inds that in the
circumstances of this case the current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a
f inding of bad faith under the Policy.
...
2025-12-18 - Case Details
The Respondent has used the Domain Names, being confusingly similar to the VIRGIN FEST Mark, to
attract visitors to its website where it passes of f as the Complainant in order to of fer what purport to be
tickets to the (likely f ictitious) Virgin Fest music festival. ...The fact that currently the Domain Name resolves
to an inactive webpage does not prevent a f inding of bad faith.
Based on the available record, the Panel f inds the third element of the Policy has been established.
7. ...
2023-10-05 - Case Details
The Respondent is using the disputed domain names to sell products unaf f iliated
with the Complainant that are in direct competition with some of the products sold under the Complainant’s
brands. ...WIPO Overview 3.0,
section 1.8.
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.
...
2024-05-20 - Case Details
Factual Background
Complainant is a company organized under the laws of France that is active in the f inancial industry,
specialized in online banking, online brokerage and f inancial information on the Internet.
...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.
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. ...
2023-12-20 - Case Details
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 ref lected, for example, within WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. ...As noted in WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8, “[w]here 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.”
Furthermore, the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain “gTLD” “.vip” is viewed as a standard registration
requirement and as such is disregarded under the f irst element confusing similarity test.
...
2023-12-27 - Case Details
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 section 1.7 of the
WIPO Overview 3.0. ...As noted in WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8: “Where the relevant trademark is recognizable
within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative,
meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity under the f irst element.”
Furthermore, the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain “gTLD” “.site” and “.com” are viewed as a
standard registration requirement and as such are typically disregarded under the f irst element confusing
similarity test.
...
2023-12-22 - Case Details