About Intellectual Property IP Training Respect for IP IP Outreach IP for... IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making IP Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization WIPO and Artificial Intelligence Working at WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets Future of IP WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars IP Enforcement WIPO ALERT Raising Awareness World IP Day WIPO Magazine Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Women Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Youth Examiners Innovation Ecosystems Economics Finance Intangible Assets Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism Music Fashion PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center World Intangible Investment Highlights WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Webcast WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Tailored Initiatives & Projects Collaborative Forums & Dialogues Innovation, Creativity and Development Acceleration Program IP for Impact National IP Strategies Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program IP Commercialization WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Global Forum on IP and AI AI Infrastructure Interchange AI Tools & Services Staff Positions Affiliated Personnel Positions Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

Full Text Search on WIPO Panel Decisions

Found 60700   document(s)s (0.038 sec)

Rows

<<  <  2201 - 2220  >  >>

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2023-3799 for genentechmf0.com, genentechmf5.com, genentechmf6.com, genentechmf7.com, genentechmf8.com, genentechmf9.com, genentechmfpe.com pdf (152 KB)

In particular, the Complainant asserts that: (1) the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s GENENTECH trademark, since they incorporate this mark in its entirety. ...Respondent 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar B. Rights or Legitimate Interests C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith 7. Decision...

2023-11-01 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2023-1450 for sodexomim.com pdf (194 KB)

Moreover, the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) and, where appropriate, will decide consistent with the consensus views captured therein. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar According to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy it should be established that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the complainant has rights. ...Respondent 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar B. Rights or Legitimate Interests C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith 7. Decision...

2023-06-07 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2023-1683 for americanairlinesnumber.com pdf (154 KB)

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, there are two requirements which the Complainant must establish, first that it has rights in a trademark or service mark, and second that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark. ...Respondent 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar B. Rights or Legitimate Interests C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith 7. Decision...

2023-06-13 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2024-0664 for linkedinproz.com pdf (146 KB)

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar B. Rights or Legitimate Interests C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith 7. Decision...

2024-04-04 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2024-0089 for stepjournal.org pdf (151 KB)

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to this trademark. Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...

2024-03-26 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2025-1421 for cloudstaff.online pdf (147 KB)

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar B. Rights or Legitimate Interests C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith 7. Decision...

2025-05-28 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2024-3722 for celtrionhc.com pdf (150 KB)

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant holds several trademarks for CELLTRION. These trademarks are registered for various services in many jurisdictions. ...Respondent 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar B. Rights or Legitimate Interests C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith 7. Decision...

2024-11-14 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2024-1170 for wwwfreeman.com pdf (209 KB)

Complainant Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the FREEMAN marks, in which Complainant has rights. The addition of “www” in front of Complainant’s mark FREEMAN is a mere addition of non-distinctive text and is therefore confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. ...The Domain Name and Registrar 3. Procedural History A. Identical or Confusingly Similar...

2024-06-07 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2024-1763 for bolorecredit.com pdf (154 KB)

The Complaint includes the following contentions: (i) Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant contends that the deletion of the letter “l” in the trademark and the addition of term “CREDIT” to the trademark BOLLORE and the gTLD suffix “.com” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant submits sufficient evidence for its registered trademark in several jurisdictions through its International registration. ...

2024-07-10 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2024-2791 for stokotoys.com pdf (152 KB)

In the present case, the Panel notes that Respondent has registered the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks STOKO and/or STOKOMANI, as explained above in section 6.A. ...Respondent 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar B. Rights or Legitimate Interests C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith 7. Decision...

2024-09-11 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2025-2898 for axaltd.org pdf (149 KB)

Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Disputed Domain Name and that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, in which the Complainant has rights. Identical or Confusingly Similar Notably, the Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark AXA, in which the Complainant has rights, noting that its AXA trademark is famous and notorious. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...

2025-09-05 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2025-2447 for linkedin999.com pdf (203 KB)

Indeed, previous panels have found that domain names containing a complainant’s trademark plus the number “999” – as is the case here – are confusingly similar to the trademark. See, e.g., Novartis AG v. 陈� (Chen Han), WIPO Case No. D2024-5053 (finding confusingly similar to KISQALI); Newcote International Limited v. ...Respondent 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar B. Rights or Legitimate Interests C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith 7. Decision...

2025-08-12 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2022-2441 for verizonbenefitsconnectin.com pdf (145 KB)

It is well established that domain names which consist of a trade mark are considered to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for the purposes of the first element regardless of the nature of any added terms. ...Respondent 6. Discussion and Findings C. Identical or Confusingly Similar D. Rights or Legitimate Interests E. Registered and Used in Bad Faith 7. Decision...

2022-09-13 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2022-2593 for cytecindustriesinc.com pdf (156 KB)

Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. Therefore, the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is met. ...Respondent 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar B. Rights or Legitimate Interests C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith 7. Decision...

2022-09-12 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2022-3592 for arvellainvestments.com pdf (149 KB)

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar According to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), the Complainant shall prove that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...Respondent 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar B. Rights or Legitimate Interests C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith 7. Decision...

2022-11-24 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2022-3146 for cintasonline.net pdf (147 KB)

The Panel determines that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CINTAS trademark. Complainant has established that it owns rights in the trademark CINTAS, and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to that trademark. ...Respondent 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainant has provided evidence of rights in the trademark CINTAS, including by registration at the USPTO and by use in commerce. ...

2022-11-07 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2022-1173 for jll-max.com pdf (143 KB)

Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has established rights according to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...The Panel finds that such use of the disputed domain name, confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, certainly does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. ...

2022-05-31 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2022-1117 for comfortkeeperscareacdemy.com pdf (150 KB)

Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant sets out in the Amended Complaint that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the marks COMFORT KEEPERS in which the Complainant has rights. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar B. Rights or Legitimate Interests C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith 7. Decision...

2022-06-13 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2022-1646 for digiiqos.com pdf (91 KB)

Complainant The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. The disputed domain name identically adopts the Complainant’s trademark. ...Respondent 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar B. Rights or Legitimate Interests C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith 7. Decision...

2022-07-07 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision DNL2022-0020 for yslbeauty.nl pdf (209 KB)

Turning to whether the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trademark, the Panel observes that the Domain Name comprises: (a) an exact reproduction of the Trademark, i.e. ...case=D2013-0585 ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Case No. DNL2022-0020 A. Identical or Confusingly Similar B. Rights or Legitimate Interests C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith...

2022-06-27 - Case Details