Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its EASTMAN
mark. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no permission to use the mark, is not known by a
corresponding name, and is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide commercial offering. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-11-27 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its SAGE
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...
2025-11-10 - Case Details
The Panel
will therefore take into account the conduct of each of these persons or entities in deciding the present
dispute, and will hereinafter refer to them jointly as the “Respondent”.
6.2. Substantive issues
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...
2025-12-10 - Case Details
The burden of proof of each element is borne by the Complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Preliminary Issue – Late Filing
6.2. Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-03-05 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the f irst 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...
2026-02-02 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain
name is confusingly similar to the very well-known ROTOPLAS mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO
Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
...
2023-12-21 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain
name is confusingly similar to the very well-known ROTOPLAS mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
...
2023-12-21 - Case Details
The burden of proof of each element is borne by the Complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Language of the Proceeding
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-07-29 - Case Details
The
additional components do not prevent the disputed domain names from being found confusingly similar to its
mark;
- the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-04-11 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has shown that it has registered rights in the Trade Marks. The Domain Name is
confusingly similar to the Trade Marks as it incorporates the FB Trade 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...
2024-05-30 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to establish the disputed
domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark in which it has rights.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-04-03 - Case Details
Failure to demonstrate any one element will
result in denial of the Complaint.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Discussion and Findings
6.1 Unsolicited Supplemental Filing
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-01-28 - Case Details
In the circumstances, the considerations discussed
in WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition
(“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.18 are not applicable.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element that the Complainant must establish is that the disputed domain name is identical with, or
confusingly similar to, the Complainant's trademark rights.
...Factual Background
5. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-01-21 - Case Details
Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that it will
(1) accept the Complaint in English and the Respondent’s communications in Korean; (2) consider any
relevant materials in both Korean and English; and (3) issue a decision in English.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, whether the Complainant has rights in a relevant trademark and,
second, whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
...Furthermore, in determining whether a domain name is identical or
confusingly similar to a trademark, the gTLD “.com” is typically disregarded (see Proactiva Medio Ambiente,
S.A. v. ...
2025-05-09 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name, , is confusingly
similar to the EXECUTIVE BRANCH mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, with the addition of
only the nondistinctive terms “the” and “club.” ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Legitimate Rights or Interests and Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-08-18 - Case Details
The Respondent did not
contest these assertions. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks
and contains a term pertaining to the Complainant’s industry (i.e. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-09-30 - Case Details
7. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
7. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
8. Decision...
2024-09-26 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the f irst 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...
2024-09-25 - Case Details
Thus, the Panel will deal with each of the requirements in turn.
page 5
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The panel finds that the entirety of the INSTA mark is reproduced within both disputed domain names with
the addition of the terms “blogs” in the disputed domain name , respectively “views”, in the
disputed domain name , both descriptive for the Complainant’s activity, which does not
prevent the finding that both disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark
INSTA. Accordingly, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the INSTA mark for the
purposes of the Policy. ...
2025-06-06 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Language of the Proceeding
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-12-06 - Case Details