In the case of the disputed domain names and , the Trademarks are
not present in their entirety. They contain only the letters “g” and “f ” instead of the whole Trademarks.
However, the content of the Websites to which these disputed domain names resolve serves to af f irm a
f inding of confusing similarity. ...As numerous UDRP panels have held,
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 1.8, WIPO Overview 3.0.
...
2023-12-20 - Case Details
Additionally, it should be noted that rights in domain names would generally be considered as acquired on a
f irst-come, f irst-served basis. See, for example, GWG Holdings, Inc. v. Jeff Burgar, Alberta Hot Rods,
WIPO Case No. ...The mere lack of success of the complaint is not, on its own, suf f icient to constitute reverse domain name
hijacking and even where a complainant’s case is weak, a f inding of RDNH is not necessarily made.
...
2024-01-04 - 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
the “Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was f iled in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on
February 17, 2025. ...See WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 1.7 and 1.11.1.
Therefore, 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.
...
2025-04-16 - Case Details
Complainant further alleges that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the VERIZON
Mark at the time Respondent registered and began using the Disputed Domain Names.
The Panel f inds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the VERIZON Mark. In
addition, Respondent’s website was designed to f raudulently acquire personal information f rom Internet
users by phishing and to direct the information to a malicious website.
The Panel f inds that Respondent registered and used the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith and that
Complainant has demonstrated the elements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
7. ...
2023-11-15 - Case Details
The addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative,
meaningless, or otherwise), in this case “my”, “pro”, and “guide”, does not prevent a f inding of confusing
similarity under the f irst element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.
Accordingly, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the marks for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
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.
...
2026-02-12 - Case Details
The mere addition of the term “alle” with the meaning of “all or everything” in some languages, does not
prevent a f inding of confusing similarity with the Complainant’s marks. As noted in 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. ...The Panel f inds the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name
and that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is satisf ied.
...
2024-01-15 - Case Details
This is particularly the case here as STA is regularly used to
refer to the Complainant, e.g., the Complainant’s domain name for its of f icial website, the various social
media posts submitted by the Complainant. In addition, in specif ic limited instances, where a panel would
benef it f rom af f irmation as to confusing similarity, the broader case context may be considered.
...Although the addition of other terms here, “sa” 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. ...
2024-06-05 - Case Details
There is no information known on the Respondent apart f rom the details as they appear on the WhoIs
record.
The disputed domain name was registered on September 2, 2023. ...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.
...
2024-05-16 - Case Details
There is no evidence of the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain
Names or a name corresponding to the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or
services. Finally, the Panel f inds that the composition of the Domain Names carries a risk of implied
af f iliation with the Complainant.
...The Respondent most likely knew of the Complainant when he registered the Domain Names. It follows
f rom the composition of the Domain Names. The Respondent’s use of the Domain Names to set up email
accounts may indicate f raudulent intent. ...
2024-07-03 - Case Details
UK00002149609 for the word mark NUFC, f iled on
October 30, 1997, registered on July 31, 1998, successively renewed, in classes 14, 21, 26, 28, 32,
and 42.
...Accordingly, the disputed domain
name is identical to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7.
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.
...
2026-05-07 - Case Details
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.3.
The Panel f inds the mark is recognizable within the Disputed Domain Name. Accordingly, the Disputed
Domain Name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...Further, section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview notes that a domain name which consists of a common,
obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the
relevant mark for purposes of the f irst element.
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.
...
2024-10-14 - 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.
...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.
...
2023-12-13 - 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.
... (discussed further below in Section C), are indicative of the
Respondent’s intent to impersonate the Complainant, which would also not support a f inding of rights or
legitimate interests.
The Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established.
...
2025-09-15 - Case Details
Les faits
Le premier Requérant est une société américaine spécialisée dans l’automatisation de la conception
électronique. Le second Requérant est une f iliale du premier Requérant. Le premier Requérant est une
société cotée en bourse, qui af f irme employer plus de 16,000 personnes et réaliser un chif f re d’af faires
annuel de plus d’USD 4 milliards.
...The disputed domain name was registered on
June 22, 2016 with GANDI SAS and redirects to a parking page.
3. The amended Complaint was f iled in French on July 26, 2023 and the Respondent did not f ile a
compliant response. The Panel, Benoit Van Asbroeck, was appointed on August 30, 2023.
4. ...
2023-09-20 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s default on April 17, 2025.
The Center appointed George R. F. Souter as the sole panelist in this matter on April 29, 2025. The Panel
f inds that it was properly constituted. ...F. Souter/
George R. F. Souter
Sole Panelist
Date: May 13, 2025
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Euromaster Services et Management v. ...
2025-05-22 - Case Details
The disputed domain names, at the time the Complaint was f iled, presented a blank page.
The disputed domain names were registered on May 18, 2023.
5. ...As regards the use in bad faith of the disputed domain names, which at the time the Complaint was f iled,
were inactive (namely, a blank page), the Panel considers that in the circumstances of this case, the passive
holding of the disputed domain names does not prevent a f inding of bad faith. ...
2023-10-06 - Case Details
While the addition of other terms here, “plc”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the
Panel f inds 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 (if anything, it af f irms targeting of a source
identif ier). 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.
...
2023-11-01 - Case Details
It is the settled view of panels applying the Policy that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) (here “.com”)
may be disregarded under the f irst element test.
The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
B. ...The disputed domain name includes the entirety of the Complainant’s WHEELZ mark together with the term
“nz”, likely to refer to the country code for New Zealand. According to the evidence in the case f ile, the
disputed domain name provides links to competing online casinos and displays the f igurative trademark of
the Complainant and also uses an identical favicon to the one f rom the Complainant. ...
2025-05-12 - Case Details
Although the addition of other terms (here, “en”) 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.
...
2025-05-22 - Case Details