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. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
On the contrary, as the Complainant claimed, the disputed domain names resolved to “under construction” pages and a fake login page related to the management of the Carrefour Pass credit card. ...
2025-12-16 - 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 f irst 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...
2025-11-10 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element of the Policy requires the Complainant to establish that the Disputed Domain Name is
identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...case=D2012-1909
page 4
element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have relevant trademark rights; and second, is
the Disputed Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to those rights.
The Complainant has rights in NEXT-MICROBIOME trademark. This registration constitutes prima facie
evidence of the Complainant's rights in the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2026-01-09 - 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...
2026-01-21 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark. The
Complainant further argues that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name
and has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2026-01-20 - 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...
2026-02-06 - 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...
2026-02-05 - Case Details
The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the disputed
domain names are confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0,
section 1.7. The Complainant’s trademark ROTHSCHILD appears in full in each disputed domain name.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-02-04 - 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. ...The Panel finds the entirety of the Trade Mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly,
the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO
Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
...
2026-02-03 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the f irst element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Discussion and Findings
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-04-24 - Case Details
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the f irst 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...
2024-04-24 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Under the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove on the balance of probabilities that:
(i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which
the complainant has rights;
(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names; and
(iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and iares being used in bad faith.
...Rather the disputed
domain names can be addressed by their respective groups as appropriate.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-01-19 - 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. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s META,
QUEST, and META QUEST marks. See WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 1.7, 1.8, and 1.11.
...
2024-01-30 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that:
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the
Complainant has rights; and
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
page 5
(iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to the information submitted by the Complainant, the Complainant is the owner of several trademark
registrations for TIMES NOW in many jurisdictions in India and abroad.
...
2023-12-26 - Case Details
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.
...Factual Background
5. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
6. Decision...
2025-08-04 - Case Details
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-1228.html
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 4
It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, where appropriate, will
decide consistent with the consensus views captured therein.
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...
2024-03-08 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed Complainant must satisfy the Panel that:
(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which
Complainant has rights; and
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Therefore, Respondent was aware of the TRIVAGO trademarks when it registered the Domain Name, knew,
or should have known that the Domain Name was confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks. See
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.2; see also TTT Moneycorp Limited v. ...
2025-05-19 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its famous
trademark, as it comprises the LEGO mark adding the word “products”, which increases the confusing
similarity, and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, which has no relevance in the confusing
similarity test. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-05-16 - 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...
2024-02-12 - Case Details
page 4
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Trade
Mark, that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain names,
and that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. ...Accordingly, these disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Trade Mark for the purposes of the
Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
...
2024-02-22 - Case Details