A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical for the purpose of the Policy to the Complainant’s
trademark PRIMARK. ...Ioannis Kara
Case No. DQA2025-0003
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith...
2025-12-12 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the trademark RITZ through registration and use
demonstrated in the record.
The Panel also concludes that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the RITZ mark. The Domain Name
entirely incorporates the RITZ mark, and adds a hyphen and the word “partners.” ...
2025-11-26 - Case Details
WIPO
Overview 3.0, section 1.10. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the
purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms, here “pro”,
may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds 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. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-10-15 - Case Details
Further, according to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences from the
Respondent’s failure to submit a response as it considers appropriate.
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...
2025-10-14 - Case Details
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...
2025-10-14 - Case Details
Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the
language of the proceeding shall be English.
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...
2025-10-13 - Case Details
Under paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, “[a] Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and
documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that
it deems applicable”.
page 3
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...
2025-09-10 - Case Details
page 3
Under paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, “[a] Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and
documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that
it deems applicable”.
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...
2024-06-10 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that:
a) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks 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...
2024-06-07 - Case Details
page 3
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Parties’ Contentions
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The disputed domain name resolves to a webpage that announces the “…engineering of AI-powered finance interfaces designed to give everyday traders a statistical edge”, which is an activity related to the Complainant’s activity, and therefore evidence ...
7. ...
2024-07-17 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The Panel also concludes that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to that
mark. The Domain Name entirely incorporates the ADBLUE mark and adds the geographical descriptor
“Maroc” (French for Morocco). ...
2024-07-03 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
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...
2024-07-01 - Case Details
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has
rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-06-28 - Case Details
This dispute resolution procedure is accepted by the disputed domain
name registrant as a condition of registration.
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
The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registratio...
7. ...
2024-06-26 - Case Details
The onus of providing these elements is on the Complainant.
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...
2024-07-08 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
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...
2025-08-06 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that:
- The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ELLIOTT trade mark, and the
Complainant’s domain name. The disputed domain name is designed to resemble an abbreviated form of
the Complainant’s name, and also resembles the Complainant’s domain name. ...Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-10-16 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which
Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2024-10-24 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainants contend that the disputed domain name is obviously confusingly similar to their
trademarks and that Respondent has not been granted, and does not have, any rights or legitimate interests
in the same.
...“Inc.” is, of course, the abbreviation of incorporated used in the United States and elsewhere to denote a
corporation. The disputed domain name is obviously confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trademarks.
The Complainants have accordingly met their burden under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2024-10-23 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
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
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-10-22 - Case Details