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
Cependant
le Requérant a demandé que la procédure soit administrée en f rançais.
La Commission administrative estime qu’à l’appui de sa demande, le Requérant démontre que le Défendeur
dispose d’une connaissance suff isante de la langue f rançaise pour pouvoir comprendre la procédure et
adresser ses observations dans cette langue. En ef fet, il apparait que :
- le Défendeur est domicilié en France; et
- l’un des deux Noms de Domaine Litigieux est composé de termes en f rançais.
En outre, le Défendeur n’a pas apporté de réponse pour s’opposer à ce que la langue de la procédure soit le
f rançais alors que l’ensemble de la documentation qui lui a été adressée par le Centre est rédigée en
f rançais et en anglais.
...
2023-10-06 - Case Details
Section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states: “A domain name which consists of a
common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar
to the relevant mark for purposes of the f irst element.”
Based on the available record, the Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
...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, 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.
...
2024-01-17 - Case Details
We do no t intend to
commerc ial ize the domain; we wil l engage in non-p ro f it ac t iv it ies . ” […]
“We call for agreement and peaceful dispute resolution, but we are p repared f o r any scenario . ”
“Regarding your inquiry about our business with bicycle parts f rom Italy, it concerns cycling training,
training advice, organizing cycling trips, organizing a community with Italian partners, and promoting
the sport. ...We have waited with our activities because we do not want to start things before you of f icially
declare. Summer is approaching and it's time to start a plan, and for that we need to have a name and a website.
...
2024-06-26 - Case Details
The Complainant has the of f icial website “www.noelcowardtheatre.co.uk”.
The disputed domain name was registered on October 4, 2023.
...In the light of the foregoing, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is being
used in bad faith; and therefore, to f ind that the Complaint fulf ills the paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.
7. ...
2024-09-25 - Case Details
Complainant claims
Respondent agreed to return the Domain Name in exchange for a payment f rom Complainant of USD 1,015.
Complainant paid the demanded amount, but transfer of the Domain Name did not occur. ...WIPO
Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
According, 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 the Domain Name. ...
2024-11-01 - Case Details
The addition of the term “travel” and the hyphen after the LAGARDERE trademark does not prevent a f inding
of confusing similarity under the f irst element.
The ccTLD “.nl” may be disregarded for purposes of article 2.1(a) of the Regulations, see Roompot Recreatie
Beheer B.V. v. Edoco LTD, WIPO Case No. DNL2008-0008.
The Panel f inds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark for purposes of the
Regulations.
...
2025-12-12 - Case Details
Thus, the Panel f inds that Complainant has satisf ied the f irst element of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, a complainant must make a prima facie showing that a respondent
possesses no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. ...Furthermore, the content provided on the website the
Domain Name reverted to, may result in tarnishing Complainant’s reputation.
In addition, the record shows that at least f ive security vendors have reported that the Domain Name is
associated with malicious, phishing or suspicious activities, according to a report f rom VirusTotal, a service
that analyzes f iles and URLs for viruses, worms, trojans and other kinds of malicious content. ...
2025-05-12 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The f irst element of the Policy functions primarily as a threshold requirement and involves a two-part inquiry:
f irst, whether the Complainant possesses trademark rights, and second, whether the disputed domain name
is identical or confusingly similar to those marks.
...The selection of a
domain name identical to a famous mark carries a high risk of implied af f iliation.
The Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complainant’s cease and desist letter and subsequent absence
f rom these proceedings further reinforces the conclusion that no rights or legitimate interests exist. ...
2025-05-30 - Case Details
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7, 1.8 and 1.9.
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.
...The disputed domain name is very similar to the Complainant’s mark and carries
a risk of af f iliation with it. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1.
The Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established.
...
2025-04-11 - Case Details
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
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.
...Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness and reputation of the
Complainant’s AMERCIAN WOODMARK trademark, and its identity with the disputed domain name, and
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.
...
2024-01-03 - Case Details
The fact that the disputed domain name was registered before the Complainant has acquired rights in the
trademark OMETV does not by itself preclude the Complainant’s standing to file a UDRP case, nor a f inding
of identity or confusing similarity under the f irst element (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.1.3).
...The addition of the letter “s” to the disputed domain name is considered an intentional misspelling of the
Complainant’s mark and does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity under the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9.
The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
...
2024-01-24 - Case Details
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.
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. ...In addition, this website:
- uses photographs and other graphical illustrations directly copied f rom the Complainant’s of f icial
website;
- uses the Complainant’s logotype of a skull as its website address bar icon (favicon);
- prominently displays the Complainant’s LIQUID DEATH mark throughout the website.
...
2025-08-20 - Case Details
No further submissions were f iled, and the Panel has not issued any procedural orders.
4. Factual Background
The Complainant, JCDECAUX SE, is a company headquartered in Neuilly-sur-Seine, France. ...Taking into account the totality of circumstances, the Panel f inds that the disputed domain name was
registered and is being used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. ...
2026-01-08 - Case Details
The Complainant additionally contends that the Respondent has never operated a bona f ide or legitimate
business under the disputed domain name. Rather the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to
impersonate the Complainant’s Ares Capital business in Mexico and to steal personal and f inancial
information from consumers. ...Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here, claimed impersonation/passing of f ,
constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel f inds the
Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitute bad faith under the Policy.
...
2025-08-26 - 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.
...The current non-use of the disputed domain name does not prevent a f inding of bad faith.
Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the
Policy.
7. ...
2023-12-22 - Case Details
Although the addition of other terms here, “you”, 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 Panel therefore f inds that it has been demonstrated that the Respondent has
used, and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...
2023-12-20 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.3 This Panel f inds and accepts that the Complainant is a famous and well-known telecommunications and
f inancial services provider in many countries including the United States of America. ...On the contrary what the evidence adduced by the
Complainant reveals is that the Respondent is utilising the Disputed Domain Name and a corresponding
email address to send fake job offers with a view to obtaining conf idential information f rom Internet users.
This Panel f inds that such activity cannot by any means be described as legitimate noncommercial of fer or
fair use activity within the ambit of the Policy. ...
2023-12-01 - Case Details