Notably, the Respondent contends that:
(1) The disputed domain name is neither identical to nor confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.
The disputed domain name “Heritcoin” is a made up word comprising two parts – “Herit” which means
“inheritance” and the English word “coin”. ...The Complainant has not
submitted any evidence showing that the Respondent has acted in bad faith.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2025-07-16 - Case Details
The entirety of SCHAEFFLER trademark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the
disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the 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...
2025-07-11 - 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...
2024-09-03 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that:
(a) The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademark. The Disputed
Domain Name incorporates the Complainant's Trademark in its entirety. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-08-19 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
VIRGIN trademark. For the Complainant, the additional components “livechat” and “supportchat” refer to
online real-time communication platforms used to interact with customers or website visitors. ...Respondents
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-08-16 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Several UDRP panels
have held that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or
widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith.
...
2024-10-03 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the disputed domain name is
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and the requirement under the first limb of the Policy is
satisfied.
...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...
2024-08-27 - 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.
...
2024-11-06 - Case Details
page 3
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain names registered by the Respondents are
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MONTE-CARLO trade marks, and that the addition of the Top-Level
Domain (“TLD”) does not affect the analysis as to whether the disputed domain names are identical or
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade marks.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-06-03 - 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...
2025-05-27 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that:
(a) The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademark. The Disputed
Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s Trademark in its entirety with the addition of the word
“market”. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-05-07 - Case Details
The Panel will therefore deal with each of these requirements.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element, the Complainant must first establish that there is a trademark or service mark in which
it has rights. ...Domain Administrator, Times Media Limited
Case No. D2025-0145
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith...
2025-05-05 - Case Details
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
As noted in section 4 above, the United States trademark PRIORITY AIR EXPRESS referred to by the
Complainant was cancelled in 2021 and is not valid at the moment. ...Procedural Issue – Language of the proceedings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests and Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-04-23 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. 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 “.net” is typically disregarded (see Proactiva Medio Ambiente, S.A. v. ...
2025-07-07 - 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...
2025-06-27 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different disputed domain
name registrants (referred to below as “the Respondents”) in a single proceeding.
6.2. Substantive Issues
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...
2024-07-17 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant explains that it owns rights in the IBM Trademark and that the disputed domain
name is confusingly similar to the IBM Trademark. The disputed domain name consists of the letters “ibm”
followed by a hyphen “-”, and the term “scala” (which is the name of an open source programming language).
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-07-01 - 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...
2024-06-25 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) extension (“.com”), as a standard requirement of domain name
registration, may be disregarded in the assessment of identity or confusing similarity.
Accordingly, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Trademarks for the purposes of the
Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
...
2024-08-12 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the f irst element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...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...
2024-07-08 - Case Details