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
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
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.
...In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent sent emails to the Complainant’s vendors f rom
email addresses generated f rom the disputed domain names, passing itself of f as an employee of the
Complainant, with the signature line displaying the Complainant’s logo, address, and name. ...
2024-03-11 - 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.
...In that sense, Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal
activity such as phishing, distributing malware, unauthorized 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.
...
2024-02-28 - Case Details
The Complainant
argues that the disputed domain name has been intentionally used to attract internet traf f ic for commercial
gain, creating a likelihood of confusion with the ALDI trademark with respect to the source, sponsorship,
af f iliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. ...Although the addition of other terms here, “store” and “international” 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. ...
2025-09-04 - Case Details
In view of the Respondent’s failure to submit a Response, the Panel is entitled to accept as true the
allegations set forth in the Complaint (unless the evidence is clearly contradictory), and to derive reasonable
inferences f rom the evidence presented.
Based on the foregoing guidance, the Panel makes the following f indings and conclusions based on the
allegations and evidence contained in the Complaint, and reasonable inferences drawn f rom the evidence
presented.
...In this dispute, it is evident that the Respondent seeks to mislead Internet users expecting to f ind the
Complainant via the disputed domain name. In view of its use of the disputed domain name to f raudulently
solicit payments f rom the Complainant’s unsuspecting customers, the Respondent lacks any rights or
legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...
2025-07-22 - Case Details
D2022-3461.
Establishing a company called “C D F (Thailand) Company Limited” does not, of itself , establish trademark
rights for the purposes of the Policy. ...The requirement of
demonstrating rights in a trademark is an immutable element of the Policy.”
The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has not been established.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
In view of the findings in respect of the first and third elements of the Policy, the Panel does not need to
address this element of the Policy.
...
2025-07-17 - 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
See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1.
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 found that the non-use
of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding 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.
...
2025-09-08 - Case Details
The Respondent requested and was granted a 4-day
extension to f ile its Response. The Response was f iled with the Center on September 3, 2024.
page 2
The Center appointed Evan D. ...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).
...
2024-10-23 - Case Details
Although the addition of the term “UK” (which may mean “United Kingdom”), 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. ...vi) Further, the Panel f inds that the lack of Response supports the Panel’s f inding of bad faith.
Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the
Policy.
...
2024-07-05 - Case Details
It is the settled view of panels applying the Policy that the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) (here “.com”) may be
disregarded under the f irst element test.
The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
B. ...The disputed domain name includes the entirety of the Complainant’s SPINZ mark together with the term
“nz”, likely to refer to the country code for New Zealand. According to the evidence in the case f ile, the
disputed domain name provides links to a competing online casino and displays the f igurative trademark of
the Complainant; and also uses an identical favicon to the one f rom the Complainant. ...
2025-05-08 - Case Details
The Response was filed with the Center
on September 24, 2025. The Complainant submitted supplemental f iling on September 30, 2025.
page 2
The Center appointed William F. Hamilton, Sally M. ...The disputed domain name incorporates the
Complainant’s Mark in its entirety, adding only the letter “s.” Such a minor variation does not prevent a
f inding of confusing similarity. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.
The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
...
2025-12-05 - Case Details
Although the addition of other terms, here, “hq” 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. 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.
...
2026-01-09 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s default on September 12, 2023.
The Center appointed Andrew F. Christie as the sole panelist in this matter on September 15, 2023. The
Panel f inds that it was properly constituted. ...Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel
orders that the disputed domain name, , be transferred to the Complainant.
/Andrew F. Christie/
Andrew F. Christie
Sole Panelist
Date: September 29, 2023
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Archer-Daniels-Midland Company v. ...
2023-10-09 - Case Details
See WIPO Overview 3.0 at 1.11.1 (“The applicable Top Level Domain (“TLD”) in
a domain name (e.g., “.com”, “.club”, “.nyc”) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is
disregarded under the f irst element confusing similarity test.”).
The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established this f irst element under the Policy.
...The Panel f inds that the Complainant has made the required prima facie showing. The Respondent has not
presented evidence to overcome this prima facie showing. ...
2023-10-06 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it is the owner of registered trademark rights in the mark EQUINOR.
The disputed domain name adopts four letters f rom that mark, i.e. “eqnr”, which the Panel f inds to be
suf f icient to render the Complainant’s trademark recognizable within the disputed domain name. ...The Panel also infers that the Respondent’s website is intended to provide
f inancial gain for the Respondent by dishonest means, e.g. by obtaining financial or other personal details
f rom Internet users.
...
2024-03-27 - Case Details
Accordingly,
the Center notif ied the Respondent’s default on May 21, 2024.
page 2
The Center appointed William F. Hamilton as the sole panelist in this matter on May 29, 2024. The Panel
f inds that it was properly constituted. ...Adding a geographical
term to the Mark does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and
the Mark. The Panel f inds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Mark.
The Panel f inds that the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
...
2024-06-13 - Case Details
Accordingly, the disputed
domain name is identical to the Trade Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
The “.f inance” TLD is viewed as a standard registration requirement and is disregarded in the Panel’s
assessment of the f irst element. ...This targeting by the Respondent is reinforced by its use of the “.finance” TLD. This is
not a bona f ide of fering of goods or services.
The Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established.
...
2024-07-08 - Case Details
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.
The Panel f inds that the f irst element of paragraph 4(a) 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.
...The Panel f inds that Complainant has established the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
7. ...
2025-12-18 - Case Details