Further, according to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences f rom the
Respondent’s failure to submit a response as it considers appropriate.
A. 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.
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/
page 4
B. ...
2024-07-03 - 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
The lack of any content on the disputed domain names
demonstrates the Respondent’s bad faith and the mala fide intention of extracting some commercial
advantage f rom the Complainant.
ii) the Respondent is f rom India and hence must have knowledge of the reputation commanded by the
Complainant within India and internationally and that registration of the disputed domain names despite
such knowledge indicates bad faith.
...Further, since the Respondent has not submitted its response in the case at hand, this Panel f inds it
appropriate to “decide the dispute based upon the complaint” as per paragraph 5(f ) of the Rules read with
paragraphs 14(a) and 14(b) of the Rules.
...
2023-11-10 - Case Details
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.
...Therefore, the
f irst element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is met.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
From the Complainant’s allegations and evidence as well as the inferences drawn f rom the evidence, the
KIMLEY-HORN mark is a distinctive and well-known mark registered by the Complainant. ...
2023-11-09 - Case Details
In the course of transforming its business from combustible cigarettes to Reduced Risk
Products (or “RRPs”) PMI has developed a number of RRP products, one of which is a tobacco heating
system called IQOS which is a precisely controlled heating device into which specially designed tobacco
sticks under the brand name HEETS, amongst others, are inserted and heated to generate a f lavorful
nicotine-containing aerosol (IQOS-System). The IQOS-System was f irst launched in 2014. Today, the
IQOS-System is available across the world and is almost exclusively distributed through PMI’s of f icial IQOS
stores and websites and selected authorized distributors and retailers (Annexes 4 and 5 to the Complaint).
...
2023-11-15 - Case Details
The addition of the term “boutique” which is generic in the f ield of retail does not distinguish the
disputed domain name f rom the Complainant’s trademark.
...In particular, the Panel considers the addition of the term “-boutique” to the Complainant’s
trademark in the disputed domain name would not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity under the f irst
element. The Panel has no doubts that in a side-by-side comparison of the disputed domain name and the
relevant trademark, the latter mark remains clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name, not least
because of its separation by a hyphen f rom the second element “boutique”.
...
2023-11-30 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered
trademarks, and was registered and is being used in bad faith to divert Internet traf f ic f rom Complainnant’s
legitimate site to the Respondent’s website. The Respondent has no connection to the Complainant, and
there is no legitimate reason for the Respondent to have registered the disputed domain name containing the
Complainant’s trademark. ...WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7 and 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.
...
2025-12-04 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. Under paragraphs 5(f ) and 14(a) of the
Rules, the Panel may decide the dispute based on the Complaint. Paragraph 14(b) allows the Panel to draw
appropriate inferences f rom the Respondent’s default.
...The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, a technical registration requirement, is disregarded in the
consideration of this element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1.
The Panel f inds that 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.
...
2025-06-26 - Case Details
The addition of a gTLD such as “.website” is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is
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.
...Having reviewed the
available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, and 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.
...
2024-09-20 - Case Details
Since Internet users will be duped into believing the Respondent’s site and the products on it
are associated with the Complainant this is not a legitimate bona f ide of fering of goods or services or
legitimate use. It is registration and use in f raudulent bad faith.
...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
However, the Respondent in this case has chosen
to f ile no substantive 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.
...C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel f inds that there is suf f icient evidence to f ind bad faith in this case.
First and foremost, the Respondent was surely aware of the Complainant and its mark when registering the
disputed domain name. ...
2023-11-30 - Case Details
The addition of the term “qatars-promo” in the Domain Names does not prevent a f inding of confusing
similarity between the Domain Names and the CARREFOUR trademark. Panels have consistently held that
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. ...See section 1.11.1
of the WIPO Overview 3.0.
Given the above, the Panel f inds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
CARREFOUR trademark for purposes of the Policy. ...
2025-05-05 - Case Details
Factual Background
The Complainant is a French multinational f inancial services f irm specialized in asset and wealth
management, corporate and investment banking, insurance and payments. ...EUROTITRES, as an af filiate company beneficiates from NATIXIS reputation. Indeed, it is the f irst French
subcontractor for retail custody of f inancial instruments. In 2022, EUROTITRES had 418 employees.
...
2024-01-24 - Case Details
Headquartered in France, Crédit
Agricole is an international banking group which is made up of a network of banks and f inancial service
companies providing a full spectrum of banking and f inancial services including retail banking, insurance,
specialized consumer credit services, corporate and investment banking. ...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.
...
2025-04-04 - Case Details
Since the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use its trademarks and
domain names, this use can only be f raudulent.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. ...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.
...
2023-12-06 - Case Details
The circumstance that the disputed
domain name is almost identical to the Complainant’s domain name , f rom which it only
dif fers for a hyphen between “nestle” and “jobs”, clearly shows that the Respondent was indeed well aware
of the Complainant, its trademarks and of f icial websites – including Nestlé’s of f icial job portal at
“www.nestlejobs.com” – and deliberately registered the disputed domain name with the intention to create an
association with the Complainant that does not exist. ...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. ...
2023-12-05 - Case Details
La Sociedad AMERICAN GAIA CORP le otorgó a la Sociedad STF GROUP S.A. la licencia para el uso las marcas STUDIO F y ELA. La Demandante STF GROUP S.A opera dos sitios web oficiales de las marcas STUDIO F y ELA, saber “www.studiof.com.co” y “www.ela.com.co”.
...En el caso del nombre de dominio en disputa si bien la marca es STUDIO F, y el nombre de dominio usa solo STUDIO sin la letra F, este Experto entiende que el contenido al que dirige el nombre de domino en disputa imitando a un sitio online de las Demandantes y usando la marca STUDIO F en forma destacada dentro del contenido confirman la conclusión del Experto de similitud confusa.
...
2022-02-09 - Case Details
page 2
On October 30, the Respondent requested an extension to f ile the Response under paragraph 5(b) of the
UDRP Rules. The extension was granted and the Response was f iled with the Center on November 9,
2025.
...Given that the Complainant has failed to establish trademark rights, the Panel f inds the f irst element of the
Policy has not been established.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Af ter considering the totality of the record, the Panel f inds that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate
interests in the disputed domain name.
...
2025-12-24 - 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 Respondent may demonstrate rights or
legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...The initiation of Complainant’s trademark use as it spun of f f rom IBM and began
trading as a separate enterprise on the NYSE was a well-publicized event. Given the distinctive nature of
Complainant’s trademark and its well-publicized use, the Panel concludes that Respondent was almost
certainly aware of that trademark when it registered and used the disputed domain name. ...
2025-12-04 - Case Details
Both Complainants have a
common grievance against the Respondent, and the latter has engaged in common conduct that is likely to
af fect the Complainants in similar fashion. Both Complainants are besides af f iliated as being part of the
same group.
It therefore appears equitable and procedurally ef f icient to the Panel to permit the consolidation.
4. ...D2013-2143 regarding domain name
: “The Complainant has been using the CIC trademark for decades in the area of
banking and f inancial services. The Panel f inds that this mark, owned by the Complainant, is a
well-known one and the Complainant has rights in several CIC trademarks...
2023-10-09 - Case Details