The onus of proving 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...
2025-09-18 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
JACQUEMUS trade mark in which the Complainant has rights as the disputed domain name incorporates
the entire JACQUEMUS trade mark with the mere addition of the term “-outlet” which does not prevent the
likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trade mark.
...Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2023-09-13 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the FARFETCH
trade mark in which the Complainant has rights as the disputed domain name incorporates the entire
FARFETCH trade mark with the mere addition of the term “-au” which does not prevent the likelihood of
confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trade mark.
...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. ...
2023-09-12 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it is the owner of trademark registrations for the mark SBARRO in
numerous jurisdictions worldwide in connection with food and restaurant services. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-09-15 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the OBAGI trademark.
The disputed domain name incorporates the OBAGI trademark in its entirety. ...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark
in which the Complainant has rights. The above requirement provided for in paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is
accordingly satisfied.
...
2023-09-15 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated rights through registration on the 1INCH trademark.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-09-22 - Case Details
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) the disputed domain name is 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 respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name incorporates the EMERGO trademark in its entirety, with the addition of the
letters “br”. ...
2023-09-21 - 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”.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Accordingly, the
disputed domain name is/are identical or confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
While the addition of other terms (here, “spain,”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements,
the Panel finds the addition of such a term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the
disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2023-09-19 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the trademark MONEY METALS EXCHANGE through
registration and use demonstrated in the record. The Panel also concludes that the Domain Name is
confusingly similar to that mark. The Domain Name incorporates the MONEY METALS portion of the mark,
and adds the term “us.” ...
2023-10-26 - Case Details
The onus of proving these elements is on the Complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Accordingly, the
disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO
Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
While the addition of other terms, here “uae”, 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. ...
2023-10-25 - Case Details
page 3
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated rights through registration and use on the BIONTECH trademark.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-10-23 - 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
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-01-30 - Case Details
page 3
6. Discussion and Findings
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...
2026-01-29 - Case Details
I have no complaints, just restore my account.”
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1.
Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the LIEBHERR trademark for the purposes
of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
...
2026-01-28 - Case Details
The Panel finds the LONGINES 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 and 1.9.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-08-15 - 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...
2025-11-28 - Case Details
The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain
name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7.
Although the addition of other terms (here, “4k”) 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. ...Discussion and Findings
6.1 Preliminary Issue: Consent to Remedy
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-03-13 - 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...
2026-03-13 - Case Details
The Panel finds the marks are recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed
domain name is confusingly similar to the marks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1,
sections 1.7 and 1.9.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-03-11 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed, the Complainant must establish each of the
following elements:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the
Complainant has rights;
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2026-03-10 - Case Details