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
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 Center commenced the panel appointment process the same day.
page 2
The Center appointed William F. Hamilton as the sole panelist in this matter on April 10, 2026. The Panel
f inds that it was properly constituted. .../William F. Hamilton/
William F. Hamilton
Sole Panelist
Date: April 20, 2026
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.1/...
2026-04-22 - Case Details
The Panel f inds that the
trademark is recognizable in the Domain Name (Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S.
...Furthermore, the content of the Website gives the impression that it originates f rom the Complainant,
prominently displaying the Complainant’s trademarks and product photographs, thereby giving the false
impression that the Website emanates f rom or is endorsed by the Complainant. ...
2023-10-17 - 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 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
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 1.11.1.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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