Complainant
The Complainant contends that disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademark MYLÉ in
which the Complainant has rights as they all reproduce its trademark in its entirety with the mere addition of
the descriptive terms “vapors”, the geographical indicators “dubai” and “uae” and the country code Top-Level
Domain (ccTLD) “.ae”.
...Given the similarities between the .aeDA Policy and the Uniform Domain Name Resolution Policy (“UDRP”),
the Panel f inds it appropriate to refer to UDRP jurisprudence, including reference to the WIPO Overview of
WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the f irst element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-03-06 - 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 rights.
...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...
2024-03-22 - Case Details
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
it 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 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
6. Decision...
2025-06-26 - 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...
2025-01-14 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which it
has rights on the following grounds, among others. The disputed domain name consists of the highly
distinctive MOUNJARO trademark, the generic phrase “for sale” (without a space), and the generic Top-
Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.store”. ...Complainant’s Further Submission
6. Discussion and Findings
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-02-04 - 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...
2024-12-09 - Case Details
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 4
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its NEURON
mark. The Complainant claims common law protection for that mark as part of its domain name from
February 2019, as well as the March 24, 2020, United States registration of the 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...
2024-12-09 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends the disputed domain name incorporates the LAW-NOW mark and it is
confusingly similar to this trademark, in which the Complainant has built up a very sizeable reputation over a
number of years. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-01-30 - Case Details
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, trademark or service mark.
There are two parts to this inquiry: the Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in a name or mark at
the date the Complaint was filed and, if so, the disputed domain name must be identical or confusingly
similar to the name or mark.
For present purposes, the Complainant has proven that it has rights over a registered trademark in the
United States of America for CARTIER as discussed in section 4 above.
...
2025-01-28 - Case Details
Complainant contends that (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s
trademarks; (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name; and (iii) Respondent
registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith.
...Substantive Issues
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;
(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.
...
2025-01-28 - Case Details
page 4
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...
2025-01-27 - Case Details
The Panel finds the ARCELOR trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly,
the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ARCELOR trademark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-12-19 - Case Details
Therefore, there is no necessity for the Panel to adjudicate the request of consolidation, here.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Discussion and Findings
Preliminary Procedural Issue: Consolidation
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-12-30 - Case Details
In
view of the Panel, the Complainant has established sufficient evidence in its favor in the case at hand.
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...
2024-12-26 - Case Details
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.
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade
mark and the Complainant has established the first requirement under the Policy.
...
2024-12-23 - 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. ...Complainant
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-02-27 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that all disputed domain names are confusingly similar to a trademark, in
which the Complainant owns rights. The Complainant brings forth that it maintains trademark registrations
for the terms WARTSILA and WÄRTSILA which predate the creation of the disputed domain names.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-05-14 - Case Details
Thirdly, even taking the
Complainant’s case at its highest, such an order would lead to unnecessary costs to no good purpose in light
of the conclusions the Panel reaches below.
C. 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.
...Preliminary matters – Translation
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
D. Rights or Legitimate Interests
E. Registered and Used in Bad Faith...
2025-06-16 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Discussion and Findings
(iii) that the disputed 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...
2025-02-10 - Case Details
The domain name that consists in
such a composition should be regarded as confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
Moreover, the word “chronographs”, associated with the trademark increases the risk of confusion in the
mind of the average Internet user. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-03-07 - Case Details