Indeed, the Complainant has provided evidence of ownership of valid
trademark registrations for DEGUSSA (f igurative mark).
As stated in section 1.10 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, “To the extent that design (or f igurative/stylized)
elements would be incapable of representation in domain names, these elements are largely disregarded for
purposes of assessing identity or confusing similarity under the f irst element”.
The Panel f inds that the textual component of the mark, consisting of “degussa”, is entirely reproduced within
the disputed domain names. ...
2026-02-05 - Case Details
Thus, the Panel f inds that the Complainant’s
rights in the CARROT trademark have been established pursuant to the f irst element of the Policy.
...WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8 (Additional terms “whether descriptive,
geographic, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise” do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity where the
relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name).
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/text.jsp?...
2025-08-26 - Case Details
The same is true for the “.co” country code Top-Level Domain
(“ccTLD”).
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 disputed domain name.
...Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here, claimed impersonation/passing of f ,
or other types of fraud, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record,
the Panel f inds Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Names constitutes bad faith under the
Policy.
...
2024-04-24 - Case Details
The Panel notes the evidence that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to an inactive webpage, which
supports the Complainant’s submission on that point and f inds that this does not represent a bona f ide
of fering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
...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.
...
2024-02-22 - Case Details
WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard Inc. / Samuel Walton, WIPO Case No.
D2020-3131 reaf f irming f inding of the previous panel in Tulip Trading.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on June 26, 2023.
...The letter set out the
Complainant’s trademark rights and sought inter alia cancellation of the disputed domain name.
Failing a response f rom the Respondent, on November 13, 2023, the Complainant f iled the Complaint.
On November 17, 2023, the Respondent sent the Center the following informal communication in
Portuguese: “O site já foi retirado do ar” (loose translation: The site has now been removed f rom the air).
...
2024-01-11 - Case Details
The
Disputed Domain Name’s resolving website also consists of prominent and f requent use of the SACHEU
Mark alongside identical images f rom the Complainant’s website.
5. ...D2012-0182 and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1. Thus, the Panel f inds that the Disputed
Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SACHEU Mark.
Based on the available record, the Panel f inds that the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
...
2025-09-12 - Case Details
Finally, as for the applicable gTLD “.com”, the Panel holds that this can be disregarded under the f irst
element 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.
...The Respondent’s registration in bad faith of the disputed domain names may
accordingly also be inferred f rom these circumstances. WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2.
The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.
...
2025-09-04 - Case Details
According to the 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) would not prevent a f inding of confusing
similarity under the f irst element.
According to the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1, the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” in the
Disputed Domain Name is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under
the f irst element confusing similarity test.
Further to all the above, 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.
...
2026-02-18 - Case Details
Phonetically, both “lyma” and “lima” may be pronounced in the same way.
The Panel f inds that the slight difference in spelling and the addition of the hyphen and word “tan” does not
prevent a f inding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Mark for the purposes of the
Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.
Accordingly, the Panel f inds that the f irst element required under 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.
...
2025-04-04 - Case Details
No evidence has been presented to the Panel that might support a claim of Respondent’s rights or legitimate
interests in the disputed domain name, and Respondent has no license f rom, or other af f iliation with,
Complainant.
Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has provided suf f icient evidence for a prima facie case that
Respondent lacks “rights or legitimate interests” in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, which
Respondent has not rebutted.
...case=D2022-2659
page 4
Accordingly, the Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a f inding of
bad faith.
The Panel f inds that the Complainant has satisf ied the elements of paragraph (4)(a)(iii) of the Policy.
7. ...
2023-12-14 - Case Details
There is no evidence of the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain
Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide of fering of goods or
services. The Panel f inds that the composition of the Domain Name, carries a risk of implied af f iliation with
the Complainant.
The Panel f inds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in
accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
...
2023-12-13 - Case Details
WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 1.7 and 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, panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity here claimed as 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 constitutes bad faith under the Policy.
...
2025-09-03 - Case Details
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not
af f iliated with the Complainant, and there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has registered the
disputed domain name to advance legitimate interests or for the bona f ide of fering of legitimate goods or
services.
...In addition, in view of section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, the current
inactive state of the disputed domain name does not prevent a f inding of bad faith under the doctrine of
passive holding.
Accordingly, the Panel f inds that the Complainant has satisf ied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
7. ...
2025-06-23 - Case Details
The Panel f inds also that the composition of the Domain Name signals the Respondent’s intention of taking
unfair advantage of the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant as
to the origin or af f iliation of the website at the dispute domain name.
The Panel f inds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in
accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
...
2025-06-20 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that the addition of the term “accounts” does not prevent a f inding of
confusing similarity with the Complainant’s FACEBOOK trademark, which remains clearly recognizable in the
disputed domain name.
...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.
...
2025-12-16 - Case Details
The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain names , f i-rush-game.com>, , and
are registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Panel f inds in the circumstances that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being
used in bad faith.
8. ...
2024-05-30 - Case Details
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 Respondent’s actions, including the imitation of the Complainant’s branding and the provision
of false contact information, indicate an intent to engage in illegitimate activity aimed at prof iting f rom
confusion with the Complainant’s mark.
The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.
7. ...
2025-04-17 - Case Details
The Complainant is also the registrant of the domain name , which resolves to the Complainant’s
of f icial public-facing website and f rom which it operates an online store.
The disputed domain name was registered on August 18, 2023. ...Absent any communications f rom the Respondent, the Panel f inds that the mere
inclusion of “Thalia” as the registrant organization in the WhoIs information for the disputed domain name
does not in itself give rise to any legitimate claim of being commonly known by the disputed domain name
pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy. ...
2023-12-13 - Case Details
It now operates a global business in various sectors, including f inancial
services through a subsidiary known as ADM Investment Services Inc. It is the proprietor of a number of
trademark registrations in several countries, including the following:
- United States Trademark Registration No. 1386430 for ADM (word mark), registered on
March 18, 1986 for goods and services in classes 1, 4, 12, 16, 29, 30, 31, and 39, claiming a date of
f irst use in 1923;
- United States Trademark Registration No. 2766613 for ADM (word mark), registered on September
23, 2003 for goods and services in classes 16, 35, 36 (including “f inancial and investment services”)
and 42.
...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.
...
2025-09-25 - 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.
...WIPO Overview 3.0,
section 1.11.1.
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.
...
2026-02-05 - Case Details