In this regard, 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.” ...
2025-04-23 - Case Details
In this regard, 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.” ...
2025-03-18 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s JUNIPER trademarks because it
reproduces its distinctive “juniper” term, with the omission of the letter “i” between the letters “n” and “p”,
which makes this a typical case of typosquatting, considering that it is an intentional misspelling of the
Complainant’s highly distinctive trademark (see section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0; see also
Schneider Electric S.A. v. ...
2025-01-02 - Case Details
See, Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. v. Ranjan Agrawal and Domain Admin /
Neil P / Indus Domains LLC, WIPO Case No. D2016-2371.
For reasons of economy, the Panel will not recite all of the Complainant’s contentions beyond the fact that it
contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed
domain name, that it has provided sufficient evidence to establish that its ANANTARA trademark is well-
known (predominantly in association with its hotels and spas) and that such mark’s fame predates the
Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name. ...
2024-11-20 - Case Details
Complainant owns a number of registrations in Switzerland and around the world for the PATEK PHILIPPE
Mark for its watch products, including the following:
United States of America Registration No. 520,291, PATEK PHILIPPE, registered on January 24, 1950, for
watches in International Class 14;
European Union Trademark Registration No. 594078, PATEK PHILIPPE, registered on October 21, 1992, for
products in International Classes 9, 14, 16, and 34.
Switzerland Trademark Registration No. P-396660, PATEK PHILIPPE, registered on October 21, 1992, for a
range of products and services in International Classes 9, 14, 16 and 34.
...
2025-08-13 - Case Details
In this regard, 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.” ...
2025-06-24 - Case Details
As far as “grap” is concerned, this element is very similar to
the Complainant’s GRAB mark, sharing the same number of letters and differing only by the final letter “p” in
lieu of “b”. The word “grap” is an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s mark and the slight difference
between “grap” and “grab” is insufficient to distinguish the element “grap” of the disputed domain name from
the Complainant’s mark. ...
2025-06-17 - Case Details
D2018-2589; see also WIPO Overview 3.0,
section 3.2.2 (“[P]articularly in circumstances where the complainant’s mark is widely known (including in its
sector) or highly specif ic and a respondent cannot credibly claim to have been unaware of the mark…,
panels have been prepared to infer that the respondent knew, or have found that the respondent should
have known, that its registration would be identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark.”). ...
2025-06-30 - Case Details
Although the mark is figurative,
especially in presenting a highly stylized letter “P”, it is clearly meant to spell the invented name “pasino”.
Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy.
...
2025-06-30 - Case Details
John Adem, WIPO Case No. D2000-1480; Gordon Sumner, p/k/a
Sting v. Michael Urvan, WIPO Case No. D2000-0596; The E.W. Scripps Company v. Sinologic Industries,
WIPO Case No. ...
2026-02-10 - Case Details
Antecedentes de Hecho
En 1979, el empresario alemán Gerd P. Grimm fundó la entidad legal mexicana Estafeta, S.A. de C.V. en la
Ciudad de México con la visión de revolucionar el mercado de entrega de paquetes en México, ofreciendo el
primer servicio puerta a puerta del país, en lugar de depender del transporte público o autobuses interurbanos.
...
2026-01-22 - Case Details
As discussed under the preceding element, the disputed domain name resolves to a website that displays the Complainant’s trademark and purports to provide information about the First Complainant, including details about its operations, products, and p...
The Panel notes that the disputed domain name was previously the subject of a successful complaint by the Complainant, in which it was found that the disputed domain name was being used to impersonate the Complainant. ...
2025-12-09 - Case Details
First, based on the circumstances here, the Panel concludes that the Respondent’s registration and use of
the Disputed Domain Name had been done for the specific purpose of creating a likelihood of confusion with
the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent and/or
trading on the name and reputation of the Complainant and its OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE Mark. See
Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”, WIPO Case No. D2000-0847 (“[t]he
only plausible explanation for Respondent’s actions appears to be an intentional effort to trade upon the
fame of Complainant’s name and mark for commercial gain”).
...
2025-12-08 - Case Details
In this regard, 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.” ...
2025-10-07 - Case Details
Here, the Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name
indicates that such registration and use had been done for the specific purpose of trading upon and targeting
the reputation, name, mark, and goodwill of the Complainants. See Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v.
Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”, WIPO Case No. D2000-0847 (“[t]he only plausible explanation for
Respondent’s actions appears to be an intentional effort to trade upon the fame of Complainant’s name and
mark for commercial gain”).
...
2026-03-05 - Case Details
Softech Ltd., DNS Administrator (gold), WIPO Case No. D2007-1699; and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG
v. P Martin, WIPO Case No. D2009-0323).
The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.net” to the disputed domain name constitutes a
technical requirement of the Domain Name System. ...
2022-06-17 - Case Details
As explained at section 3.1.4 of the 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 trade mark
by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith.” ...
2022-06-16 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHAMPIONX trademark, according to
Complainant, because it is a misspelling of Complainant’s CHAMPIONX trademark, with the substitution of
the letter “q” for the letter “p.”
Complainant further asserts that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain
name based on: the lack of evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names;
the lack of evidence that Respondent has made use of, or made demonstrable preparations to use the
disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; and Respondent’s use
of misleading WhoIs information.
...
2022-06-15 - Case Details
As explained at section 3.1.4 of the 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 trade mark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a
presumption of bad faith”. ...
2022-03-15 - Case Details
The launch of Complainant’s recently approved
pharmaceutical product BIKTARVY was one of the most successful drug launches ever, with sales
exceeding USD 4.7 billion in 2019.
Complainant is a member of the S&P 500 and employs approximately 14,500 individuals worldwide.
Some of Complainant’s medications have been place on the World Health Organization’s List of Essential
Medicines due to their nature as revolutionary treatments and cures of fatal disease, including HARVONIK, a
treatment for hepatitis C infections and TRUVADA which is indicated for the prevention of infection by the
HIV virus via pre-exposure prophylaxis.
...
2022-03-08 - Case Details