Complainant owns the trademark CLAUDE (the “CLAUDE Mark”), including United States Trademark
Registration No. 7645254 applied of February 10, 2023 and registered on January 7, 2025, in international
class 42: in connection with “[p]roviding temporary use of on-line non-downloadable software that includes,
accesses, uses, and interacts with an artificial intelligence model to perform generative text AI tasks and
natural language processing AI tasks and to produce written content based on a theme, text summaries,
document question-answering, and natural conversation simulation; application service provider featuring
application programming interface (API) software for performing generative text AI tasks and natural
language processing AI task and for writing content based on a theme, summarizing text, document
question-answering and simulating natural conversations; software as a service (SAAS) featuring software
using artificial intelligence for performing generative text AI tasks and natural language processing AI tasks
and for writing content based on a theme, summarizing text, document question-answering and simulating
natural conversations”. ...
2025-10-01 - Case Details
Equifax Inc. is a member of Standard & Poor’s (“S&P”) 500 Index,
and its common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) under the symbol EFX.
...
2025-04-15 - Case Details
The Complainant’s parent company, Chubb Limited, trades on the New
York Stock Exchange (NYSE: CB) and is a component of the S&P 500 index.
The Complainant is the owner of number of registered trademarks for the CHUBB trademark, including the
following:
- United States trademark registration No. 1729813 for CHUBB, registered on November 3, 1992;
- United States trademark registration No. 5648457 for CHUBB, registered on January 8, 2019; and
- United States trademark registration No. 5586289 for CHUBB, registered on October 16, 2018.
...
2025-04-15 - Case Details
Additionally, section 3.2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 provides that “[p]articular circumstances panels may
take into account in assessing whether the respondent’s registration of a domain name is in bad faith
include: (i) the nature of the domain name (e.g., a domain name incorporating the complainant’s mark plus
an additional term such as a descriptive or geographic term, or one that corresponds to the complainant’s
area of activity or natural zone of expansion); [...] ...
2025-04-23 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that:
- The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the NAF Trademark because
“[p]ast Panels have consistently held that a disputed domain name that consists merely of a complainant’s
trademark and an additional term that closely relates to and describes that complainant’s business is
confusingly similar to that complainant’s trademarks”; “the generic, descriptive term ‘builders’ […] is closely
linked and associated with Complainant’s brand and trademark only serves to underscore and increase the
confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademark”; and
“Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name contributes to the confusion. ...
2025-04-22 - Case Details
Additionally, section 3.2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 provides that “[p]articular circumstances panels may
take into account in assessing whether the respondent’s registration of a domain name is in bad faith
include: (i) the nature of the domain name (e.g., a typo of a widely-known mark, or a domain name
incorporating the complainant’s mark plus an additional term such as a descriptive or geographic term, or
one that corresponds to the complainant’s area of activity or natural zone of expansion); [...] ...
2025-03-12 - Case Details
”
- The Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith because, inter alia, “[t]he
Disputed Domain Name resolves to a site that solely offers competing digital image and avatar products and
services under the HEYGEN Mark”; “[p]anels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain
name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the
mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or widely known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself
create a presumption of bad faith”; and “Respondent’s Whois contact information is false” given that “[t]he
address and street do not exist in New Jersey.”
...
2025-08-18 - Case Details
The Parties
The Complainant is MZ Wallace, Inc., United States of America (“United States” or “U.S.”), represented by
Vedder Price P. C., United States.
The Respondents are na, Zhang Fei, China; and Li Ming, China.
2. The Domain Names and Registrars
The disputed domain name is registered with Dominet (HK) Limited.
...
2025-07-01 - Case Details
The
Complainant’s stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange and is a component of the S&P 500. The
group employs over 38,000 people, with more than 800 facilities in 200 countries and 2023 net sales of USD
93 billion.
...
2025-01-20 - Case Details
As set forth in section 3.1.4 of WIPO Overview 3.0, “[p]anels have consistently found that the mere
registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising
typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or widely-known trademark by an
unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith.” ...
2025-01-17 - Case Details
Additionally, section 3.2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 provides that “[p]articular circumstances panels may
take into account in assessing whether the respondent’s registration of a domain name is in bad faith
include: (i) the nature of the domain name (e.g., a typo of a widely-known mark, or a domain name
incorporating the complainant’s mark plus an additional term such as a descriptive or geographic term, or
one that corresponds to the complainant’s area of activity or natural zone of expansion); [...] ...
2025-01-29 - Case Details
The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of
Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
4. Factual Background
The Complainant is Ph l p Morr s Products S.A. (“PMI”). PMI is a leading international tobacco and smoke-
free products company established under the laws of Switzerland. ...
2026-02-04 - Case Details
With respect to bad faith registration and use of the domain name, Complainant argues:
“[P]anels have repeatedly held that using a domain name in connection with a monetized parking page under
the circumstances present here – including links labeled “Wrestling Games” and “Raw Tickets” […], which
are associated with the services described by Complainant’s WWE Trademark […] – constitutes bad faith.”
...
2025-11-10 - Case Details
DBR2023-0013; e Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft e Volkswagen do Brasil Indústria de Veículos
Automotores Ltda. v. P. C. J., Caso OMPI No. DBR2015-0005.
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=DBR2023-0013
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?...
2025-12-08 - Case Details
DBR2023-0013; e Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft e Volkswagen do Brasil Indústria de Veículos
Automotores Ltda. v. P. C. J., Caso OMPI No. DBR2015-0005.
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=dbr2023-0013
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?...
2024-09-02 - Case Details
Moreover, the Panel finds DDIL is recognizable within the disputed domain name, differing in the
abbreviation only by the addition of the letter “p”. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly
similar to DDIL for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2024-09-02 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant substantially alleges the following:
The Complainant is a large corporation with operations or investments in 24 countries, employs
approximately 11,000 people worldwide and is a member of the Standard & Poor's (“S&P”) 500 Index where
its common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) under the symbol “EFX”. ...
2024-10-04 - Case Details
In this context, the Panel refers to the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4, which states “[p]anels
have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar
(particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous
or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith”.
...
2024-10-03 - Case Details
Section 4.6 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition
(“WIPO Overview 3.0”) advises that “Unsolicited supplemental filings are generally discouraged, unless
specifically requested by the panel…. [P]anels have repeatedly affirmed that the party submitting or
requesting to submit an unsolicited supplemental filing should clearly show its relevance to the case and why
it was unable to provide the information contained therein in its complaint or response. ...
2024-10-01 - Case Details
Lianfa, WIPO Case No. DPW2014-0003; L'Oréal v. Vitaly P Pak, WIPO Case No. D2013-0291; L'Oréal v.
Wen Tao, WIPO Case No. 2012-0521; L’Oreal v Rampe Purda / Privacy--Protect.org, WIPO Case No.
...
2024-08-23 - Case Details