Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules directs the Panel to decide the 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 the Panel deems 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 name, trade mark or service mark.
...Having regard to those matters, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to at least the Complainant’s trade marks referred to above. Each of the Complainant’s trade marks, ARGYLE and ARGYLE DIAMONDS, are wholly encompassed within the disputed domain name. ...
2021-10-21 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondents
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-11-13 - Case Details
Complainants
In summary, the Complainants contend as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The disputed domain names are identical, or at least confusingly similar, to the OLEFY trademark. ...It has provided access to the general email account since August 20, 2022 to provide VTT with full access to
received email.
Identical or confusingly similar
The Respondent was fully aware of the first Complainant’s trademarks and the disputed domain names are
similar to the second Complainant’s company name. ...
2023-01-30 - Case Details
Complainant
In summary, the Complainant contends as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SOUTH32 trademark, which has
become one of Australia’s and the world’s leading mining industry brands. ...The
Complainant was not the first to have an established trademark in the term.
page 6
Identical or confusingly similar
There is similarity but the Respondent has shown that its rights were first in time.
...
2023-07-12 - Case Details
For the purpose of easy comprehension of the Complainant (the only Party actively taking part in the proceeding) of the Panel’s decision without any necessity of translations, and in the interest of fairness to both Parties as well as the Panel’s obligation under paragraph 10(c) of the Rules, which provides that “the Panel shall ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition”, the Panel hereby decides under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, that the language of the proceeding shall be English and proceeds to its decision in English.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is required to establish the following: (i) that it has trademark rights, and, if so, (ii) that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark.
...On the basis of the foregoing findings, and according to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s OSRAM trademark, and the first element, paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is established.
...
2017-12-14 - Case Details
The next question is whether
the disputed domain names isare identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
marks. In this regard, it cannot be said that the domain names and registered
trademarks are identical, given the addition of the suffixes "bikes"
and "-uk" in the case of the domain names. On the other hand, there
can be little doubt that the latter are confusingly similar to these marks,
on the basis submitted by the Complainant, namely that the letters "BMW"
are the dominant and distinctive component of each of the domain names. ...
2002-01-08 - Case Details
Each of these elements is considered in turn below.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has satisfied the first element: the disputed domain name is “identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights.” ...Prior decisions under the Policy leave
little doubt that a registrant cannot have a right or a legitimate interest
in using a domain name that is confusingly similar to registered trademarks
or service marks in order to compete with the marks’ owner. ...
2004-12-13 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
registered trademark. The first element of the Policy is satisfied.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests by showing bona fide use, being commonly known by the domain name, or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. ...
2025-09-22 - Case Details
The Panel has reviewed the case and found the following:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The Panel finds the
Complainants’ mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain
name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
The Panel has disregarded the gTLD in this case “.com”. ...
2025-09-09 - Case Details
The Panel therefore confirms that NMBS is not a party to these proceedings and will proceed
solely against George May of NM&A 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. ...The Panel finds the entirety of the Trade Mark is reproduced within all the Domain Names. Accordingly, the
Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Trade Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview
3.0, section 1.7.
...
2025-09-05 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different disputed domain
name registrants (referred to below as “the Respondent”) in a single proceeding.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondents
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.
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...
2025-09-03 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that:
- The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s JCDECAUX trade mark. The
disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trade mark with the addition of the suffix “-uzb”.
...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.
6.2 Substantive issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2025-09-02 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions and is therefore in default.
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...
2025-09-01 - Case Details
The Panel will therefore proceed to analyze whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy
are satisfied.
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 or Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-02-13 - Case Details
The Panel will therefore proceed to analyze whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are
satisfied.
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...
2026-02-11 - Case Details
Respondent
5.4 The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.1 It is generally 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...
2025-10-23 - Case Details
In the interest of fairness and due process, the Panel decides to accept the Late Response.
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...
2025-12-01 - Case Details
Had the response been filed in either Russian or English, the Panel would have been able to consider it.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-12-01 - Case Details
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 4
6.2 Findings on the Merits
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Discussion and Findings
6.1 Preliminary Issue: Language of the Proceeding
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-12-16 - Case Details