The Complainant owns a pending trademark application in the United States Patent and Trademark Of f ice
(“USPTO”) for the mark MARY ALICE HANEY, United States Serial No. 99161826. That application claims
f irst use as of December 12, 2003 and covers the provision of a website featuring news, articles, reviews,
photographs, and other information and multi-media materials relating to performing as an actor in f ilms and
television, events in the field of women’s rights, women’s health and advocacy for women, fashion, celebrity
styling, fashion design; and hosting television programs and news and entertainment broadcasts. The
application was f iled with the USPTO on April 29, 2025; it has not yet been examined.
Based on the available record, the Respondent seems to have registered the disputed domain name in
January 2025. ...
2025-06-30 - 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
Considering the Parties’ submissions, the Policy, the Rules, the Supplemental Rules, and applicable law, the
Panel’s f indings with respect to each of the above elements are set out below.
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.
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.
...
2025-08-25 - Case Details
Noting the definition of a respondent in the Rules, and the confirmation of the Registrar, the Panel f inds that
the Respondent is “Sakib Tanoy” for the purposes of the Policy. Moreover, the Panel notes that any
potential relationship of the third party to the registration of the disputed domain name does not alter the
Panel’s f indings below.
...Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness and 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.
...
2025-08-13 - Case Details
ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Families Thrive, Inc. f/k/a/ Children Awaiting Parents, Inc. v. Loc Thi,
V9betmobile
Case No. D2025-3027
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Families Thrive, Inc. f /k/a/ Children Awaiting Parents, Inc., United States of America
(“United States”), represented by Woods Oviatt Gilman LLP, United States.
...Sole Panelist
Date: September 22, 2025
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Families Thrive, Inc. f/k/a/ Children Awaiting Parents, Inc. v. Loc Thi, V9betmobile
Case No. D2025-3027
1. The Parties
2. ...
2025-09-25 - 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 notes that none of the circumstances described in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy can be inferred
f rom the f ile.
Notably, the Panel finds that the Respondent is offering a modified version of the Complainants WHATSAPP
app purporting to be “a better version of the WhatsApp app, with many more features”. ...
2025-11-06 - Case Details
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.1/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.1/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.1/
page 4
The Panel f inds the mark is entirely contained and clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name.
Although the addition of other terms - here at the end of the disputed domain name the term “store” - 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 3.1, 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.
...
2026-05-01 - Case Details
Although the addition of other terms here, “pac” 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.
...
2026-02-12 - Case Details
Considering the Parties’ submissions, the Policy, the Rules, the Supplemental Rules, and applicable law, the
Panel’s f indings with respect to each of the above elements are set out below.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the f irst element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...However, under the doctrine of passive holding, the lack of active use does not, as such, prevent a f inding of
bad faith. In the circumstances of this case, including the reputation of the Complainant’s SANOFI
trademark and the absence of any plausible good faith registration and use by the Respondent, the Panel
f inds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2026-02-05 - Case Details
Accordingly, the disputed domain
name is identical to the mark 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.
...Here, noting the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s mark, the composition of the disputed domain
name, and the prior use of the disputed domain name, the current passive holding of the disputed domain
name does not prevent a f inding of bad faith.
The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.
...
2025-11-28 - Case Details
It has long been established under UDRP decisions that adding terms to a trademark, here, the mere
addition of the prefix “na” and the letter “s” after the mark, does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity
under the f irst element of the Policy, if the relevant trademark remains recognizable within the disputed
domain name (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8).
...Rather, it appears the Respondent has purposely attempted to take unfair advantage of the
Complainant’s mark.
The Respondent did not f ile a response and hence has not rebutted the Complainant’s contentions.
Based on the available record, the Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established.
...
2025-12-05 - 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 23, 2024. ...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.
...
2024-04-25 - Case Details
It of fers insurance underwriting in numerous dif ferent f ields throughout the United States of
America. According to the Complainant’s website at “www.amerisure.com”, the Complainant is licensed in
all f if ty states and has been in business for more than 110 years.
...The disputed domain name could readily be typed by mistake instead of a
domain name identical to this mark apart f rom the gTLD suf f ix or misread as that domain name.
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the
Complainant has rights.
...
2023-12-14 - 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
D2002-0122).
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 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 available record,
the Panel f inds the non-use of the Domain Name does not prevent a finding of bad faith in the circumstances
of this proceeding. ...
2023-12-12 - Case Details
The Respondent also said that there was no contact f rom the Complainant before the present f iling. The
Respondent indicated his wish that his decision to delete the disputed domain name would resolve the
present matter. ...However, such inactive status does not prevent a f inding of bad faith. Given the totality of the
circumstances, particularly the well-known status of the Complainant’s trademark, that it is identically
incorporated into the disputed domain name, that the Respondent’s identity was initially masked through the
use of a privacy service, and the Respondent did not rebut the Complainant’s contentions as regarding the
Respondent’s awareness of, and intent to target, the Complainant, the Panel f inds that the Respondent’s
passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a f inding of bad faith. ...
2023-12-20 - Case Details
In this regard, WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.4 sets out as follows:
1.4 Does a trademark owner’s af f iliate or licensee have standing to f ile a UDRP complaint?
1.4.1 A trademark owner’s affiliate such as a subsidiary of a parent or of a holding company, or an exclusive
trademark licensee, is considered to have rights in a trademark under the UDRP for purposes of standing to
f ile a complaint.
...C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel f inds that the Complainant is part of a group of companies that provide f inancial services under
the name BARCLAYS, that this group includes Barclays PLC, that the BARCLAYS trade mark is used by
dif ferent companies within the group in respect of different but affiliated services, and that the BARCLAYS
trade mark as used by members of this group is well-known at least in respect of banking and related
f inancial services. ...
2023-11-28 - 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
Moreover, as noted in WIPO Overview 3.0 section. 1.11.1, the gTLD is a standard registration requirement
and as such is typically disregarded under the f irst element test of confusing similarity.
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 4
The Panel f inds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the
Complainant has rights. ...It is unclear f rom the Complaint and the annexes to the Complaint what if any substantive content has been
displayed on the Respondent’s website. ...
2023-11-30 - Case Details
Factual Background
The Complainant is Euronext N.V., a Dutch company operating in the f inancial f ield, and owning several
trademark registrations worldwide for EURONEXT, among which are:
- the European Union, registration No. 013343629, word mark EURONEXT for the classes 9, 35, 36, 38,
41 and 42, registered on March 3, 2015;
- the United Kingdom, registration No. ...Furthermore, the Panel notes that the composition of the Disputed Domain Names carry a risk of implied
af f iliation. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1.
Therefore, the Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established.
...
2024-03-11 - Case Details