The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with iNET Corporation (the “Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was f iled in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on
February 20, 2025. ...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.
...
2025-04-17 - Case Details
Although the addition of the term “app”, here, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the
Panel finds the addition of such term, does not prevent a finding 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.
...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
In its informal communications the Respondent claims he acquired the disputed domain name f rom the
Registrar and invested in its promotion on Internet, and therefore he will suf fer f inancial loses should a
decision be rendered against him. ...
2024-06-26 - Case Details
The mere addition of the geographic term “pakistan” to the Complainant’s trademark
LUNDBECK does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity with the Complainant’s marks.
Furthermore, the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain “(gTLD”) “.com” is not suf f icient to prevent a
f inding of confusing similarity either. ...Here the
Panel f inds that the Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a f inding
of bad faith (see section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).
...
2024-07-08 - Case Details
While the addition of other term “-experiences” 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.
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.
...
2023-10-16 - Case Details
Complainant holds a registered trademark for WILD POSTING with the United States Patent and Trademark
Of f ice (“USPTO”), Reg. No. 5,432,087, registered on March 27, 2018 in connection with “outdoor
advertising” with a March 20, 2017 date of f irst use in commerce.
...According to Respondent, his firm, James Rogers, Inc., merged with a f irm called National Promotion
& Advertising to form a f irm called NPA. On March 23, 2006, the f irm NPA f iled one of the USPTO
trademark applications for WILDPOSTING discussed above (in connection with “advertising services” and
with a 1997 claimed date of first use in commerce), but that application was abandoned as of October 29,
2009.
5. ...
2023-10-11 - Case Details
For the above reasons, the Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain names and corresponding websites
are subject to common control, and that, in the circumstances, consolidation is fair and equitable to all
parties, and also procedurally ef f icient.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the f irst element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...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
C. ...
2023-10-06 - Case Details
On conducting a side-by-side comparison of the Disputed Domain Names and the textual components of the
relevant trademark, it is apparent that as the relevant mark is incorporated in its entirety and as such is
recognizable in each of the Disputed Domain Names, the addition of the hyphen or the word “equity” would
not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the f irst element. This Panel therefore f inds that the
Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s RIPPLEWOOD trademark for
purposes of UDRP standing (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7).
...Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out certain
circumstances to be construed as evidence of both of these conjunctive requirements.
The Panel f inds that the evidence in the case shows the Respondent registered and has used the Disputed
Domain Names in bad faith.
...
2023-10-05 - Case Details
However, the Respondent in this case has chosen
to f ile no Response to these assertions by the Complainant, and there is no evidence or allegation in the
record that would warrant a f inding in favor of the Respondent on this point.
...D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel f inds that there is strong and clear evidence to f ind bad faith in this case.
The registration of the disputed domain name which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known
NATIXIS mark by the Respondent, who is unaffiliated with the Complainant, creates a presumption of bad
faith. ...
2023-10-05 - Case Details
The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred f rom the Respondent to the
Complainant.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
...WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7
and 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.
...
2023-11-01 - Case Details
Although the addition of other term here, “stock”, 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.
...
2025-09-11 - Case Details
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not af f iliated with the Complainant. There is no
evidence of the Respondent being commonly known by the Domain Name. ...The Respondent most likely knew of the Complainant when he registered the Domain Name. It follows f rom
the composition and use of the Domain Name, and the fame of the Complainant. The Respondent’s use of
the Domain Name is further evidence of bad faith. ...
2024-03-13 - Case Details
There is no contact or identifying information on the Respondent’s website, apart f rom a single phone
number and a webform to “get started now.”
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. ...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. ...
2025-12-19 - Case Details
This logo
is registered as a f igurative mark as follows:
Mark Jurisdiction Reg. Number Reg. Date Goods or Services
OMIS (f igurative) Italy 0001127929 July 16, 2008 IC 7
OMIS (f igurative) European Union 009730953 March 30, 2012 IC 7, 9, 37, 42
OMIS (f igurative) International 1825006 August 5, 2024 IC 7, 9, 37, 42
The disputed domain name was created on July 31, 2003, and is registered to the Respondent mediaWorld
Advertising International FZE (“mediaWorld”), listing a postal address in Dubai, UAE, and a contact email
address in the domain . ...The Complainant offered to purchase the disputed domain name f rom the
catering business Omi’s in May and June 2022 through Register S.p.A., which was then the registrar. ...
2025-09-08 - Case Details
The Respondent’s websites resemble the Complainant’s of f icial
website, and it is clear that the Respondent was well aware of the MICHELIN brand at the time of
registration. ...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 the disputed domain names.
...
2025-12-11 - 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.
...The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?...
2026-02-06 - Case Details
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.
...Having reviewed the available
record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant’s Trademark, as well as the
composition of 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.
...
2024-05-30 - Case Details
Rather, it constitutes an
attempt to create confusion so as to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website for commercial gain
f rom click-through revenue generated by the sponsored links. The Complainants assert that diverting traf f ic
to the Respondent’s website trades on the goodwill of the Complainants and creates a mistaken belief that
the Complainants condone such conduct or are somehow af f iliated with the other sites advertised on the
Respondent’s website. ...The addition of the term “official” does not prevent a finding of confusing
similarity.
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.
...
2024-02-28 - 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 disputed domain name falls into the category stated above and the
Panel f inds that registration is in bad faith.
The disputed domain name is also being used in bad faith.
...
2025-07-16 - Case Details
WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 1.7 and 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.
...The Respondent, either directly or indirectly (through the
company managing the site linked to the disputed domain name), has used the disputed domain to draw
traf f ic to a competing website for commercial gain, by creating confusion or an af f iliation with the
Complainant and its trademark. ...
2025-08-12 - Case Details
Factual Background
The Complainant is part of the Philip Morris International Inc. group, which is a group of companies active in
the f ield of tobacco and smoke-f ree products (Annexes 4 and 5 to the Complaint).
The Complainant owns various word and figurative IQOS trademark registrations around the world, including
in Türkiye, where the Respondent is reportedly located. ...Although the addition of other terms, here the letters “tr” in combination with the terms “sanal” and “market”,
which is Turkish and means “virtual” and “market”, 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. ...
2024-07-08 - Case Details