WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1.
Accordingly, 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. ...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. ...
2024-03-06 - Case Details
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.
The Panel f inds the entirety of the Complainant’s mark EURONEXT is reproduced within the Disputed
Domain name. ...Although the addition of other terms, here “nl” 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. ...
2024-01-08 - Case Details
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
The Panel thus f inds that the Complainant has satisfied its burden of proof under Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
...Upon review of the record, the Panel f inds
that both the registration and use of the disputed domain names by the Respondents constitute bad faith
under the Policy. ...
2025-09-03 - Case Details
In fact,
the Respondent must have had in mind intentionally registering the Complainant’s famous mark, expecting
that Internet users eventually searching for the Complainant’s services would come across the Respondent,
and should have known that by registering the disputed domain name, it was not only violating the
Complainant’s earlier rights, but also preventing the Complainant f rom ref lecting its mark in the
corresponding domain name.
Page 4
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name resolving previously to the Complaint f iling to an
error page does not prevent a f inding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding.
...Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003.
The Panel f inds such behavior to constitute bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name
under the Policy. ...
2025-08-18 - Case Details
Accordingly, the disputed domain
name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of the Policy.
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 Complainant’s trademark registration predates the
Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name by more than 20 years. The Panel f inds that the
Complainant’s trademark PANALYTICAL is not a dictionary word. Noting the Complainant’s long use and
registration of its trademark and in the absence of a response f rom the Respondent, the Panel f inds on
balance that the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant’s trademark when registering
the disputed domain name, and intended to cause confusion between the Complainant and the Respondent.
...
2025-09-08 - Case Details
Third, almost all the disputed domain names are being used in furtherance of a f raud and phishing scheme.
Specifically, the email addresses associated the disputed domain names are being used to impersonate
Aramco to send f raudulent emails that solicit money and personal information f rom vendors seeking
partnership opportunities with Aramco. ...The disputed domain name appears not to have been used to send f raudulent
emails but the domain name is included in the above-mentioned email f rom the Eighth Respondent.
...
2024-04-24 - Case Details
the “Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was f iled in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on
September 27, 2023. ...Moreover, the Panel notes the composition of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied af f iliation
(see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1). The additional term “of f icial” directly refers to the common
expression of “operated by the owner directly”, which actually increases the likelihood of confusion.
...
2023-12-14 - Case Details
The Complainant has over 4,800 employees, with its primary of f ices in San Diego, California; Fort Mill,
South Carolina; Boston, Massachusetts and Austin, Texas. ...The disputed domain name is also confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark LPL FINANCIAL, from
which it differs by the substitution of term “financial” with the visually, phonetically and semantically similar
term “f inancing”. In the Panel’s view, this variation does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity.
...
2023-12-13 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the f irst element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or
threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between
the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. ...Accordingly, the disputed domain
name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 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.
...
2025-08-07 - Case Details
Although the addition of other terms, here “bali”, 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. ...The use of MX records associated with the disputed domain name
further raises the possibility of malicious use, such as phishing or email f raud, which could exploit the
goodwill associated with the Complainant’s mark. This reinforces the Panel’s f inding of the Respondent’s
bad faith.
...
2025-05-23 - Case Details
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8) In addition, the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.org” is
disregarded under the f irst element test. (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1).
Therefore, the Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
...WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.) Accordingly, the Panel f inds
that the Respondent does not use them in connection with a bona f ide of fering of goods or services or a
legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names under these circumstances. ...
2025-12-04 - Case Details
The Panel f inds that such use of the disputed domain name falls into paragraph
4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
The fact that the disputed domain name no longer resolves to an active website, does not prevent a f inding
of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3.
The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.
7. ...
2024-03-11 - Case Details
While the addition of other terms, here “casino”, 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
Domain Name and the WILDZ 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.
...
2024-01-05 - Case Details
The Complainant’s customer service department received a number of messages f rom its customers
concerning orders that had not been received and that they were unable to trace.
...WIPO Overview 3.0,
section 2.13.1.
The Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel refers to its consideration under 6.B.
...
2024-02-05 - Case Details
Merit Turizm Yatirim
Ve Isletme Anonim Sirketi v. Fedlan Kilicaslan, G&F Company Group NV / Redsoft N.V., WIPO Case
No. D2017-1398.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the f irst element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Although the addition of other terms (here, “eu”) 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. ...
2024-11-06 - Case Details
SAERANG COSMETICS in Class 3, PETER F. SAERANG ACCESSORIES & JEWELRY in Class 14, PETER F. SAERANG HAIRDRESSING SCHOOL in Class 41, and PETER F. ...The Respondent is not known by the name Peter Frits Saerang or Peter F. Saerang. The Complainants have no relationship with the Respondent and have not permitted the Respondent to use the name and trademark PETER F. ...
2007-05-31 - Case Details
The IQOS System was f irst launched by PMI in Nagoya, Japan in 2014
and has obtained, according to the Complainant extraordinary 20% share of the market in Japan. ...The addition of other terms (“shop” and “smoke”) does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity under the
f irst element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.
The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
...
2026-02-12 - 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
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.
...
2023-12-14 - 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.
...Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not
prevent a f inding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. Having reviewed the 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 including (i) the significant online visibility of the Complainant’s CARREFOUR trade mark,
(ii) the failure of the Respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated
good-faith use and (iii) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the disputed domain name may be
put. ...
2023-12-21 - 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.
...The Panel f inds that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Noting the status
of the MOUNJARO mark and the overall circumstances of this case, the Panel f inds it more likely than not
that Respondent knew or should have known Complainant’s MOUNJARO mark. ...
2025-04-28 - Case Details