Respondent
Respondent did not reply to 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...
2026-02-25 - Case Details
Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar as it fully incorporates the
WOODS mark in its entirety. Complainant further asserts that the inclusion of the word “equipment” with the
letter “s” at the tail of the disputed domain name is of no import and is, in fact, an intentional attempt to create
confusion with Complainant’s domain name.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Ownership of a trademark registration is generally sufficient evidence that a complainant has the requisite
rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...
2026-02-23 - Case Details
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its BISON GREEN
trademark application and common law trademark and to the business lending website
“www.bisongreen.com”, and attempts to profit off potential clients seeking Bison Green financial lending
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...
2025-08-15 - Case Details
page 3
Notably, the Complainant contends:
(a) that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s TEMPUR Marks except that
the Respondent has added the words “mattress toppers”.
...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. ...
2026-01-08 - 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...
2026-01-07 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed the Complainant must satisfy the Panel that:
(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 was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...This dispute resolution procedure is accepted by the domain name registrant as a
condition of registration.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-01-18 - Case Details
Respondent
5.3 The Respondent did not file a formal Response 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...
2024-01-18 - 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. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-02-16 - Case Details
According to Complainant: “Respondent is profiting by hosting a domain name for a website that’s
confusingly similar to websites operated under Complainant’s domain name, exploiting the appearance of
Complainant’s credibility or identity to deceive Internet users.” ...page 3
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
As noted above, Complainant does not hold a registered trademark for PBGC, but asserts common law
rights in PBGC through extensive use as a source identifier for Complainant’s services such that PBGC has
acquired secondary meaning among consumers as a mark identifying Complainant’s services. ...
2024-02-06 - Case Details
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...
2024-01-31 - 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...
2024-02-28 - 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.
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...
2024-01-23 - 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...
2024-01-22 - 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...
2024-01-19 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its HARVEY NICHOLS
trademarks because the disputed domain name is virtually identical to the Complainant’s HARVEY
NICHOLS trademarks. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To begin with, the Panel confirms that the Complainant has satisfied the threshold requirement of having
trademark rights in HARVEY NICHOLS.
...
2023-08-02 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that:
- the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks;
- the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name;
- the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith
B. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2023-07-17 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the
trademarks in which it has rights, since its IG trademark is immediately recognizable in the disputed domain
names as the leading element, and that the addition of the terms "profile" and “viewer” to the Complainant’s
IG trademark does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.
...Considering all the circumstances of the present case, the Panel will therefore proceed to review the facts of
the case and subsequently make a decision on the merits.
7. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2023-07-13 - Case Details
The disputed domain
name consists of the Trade Mark plus the Australian country code Top-Level Domain extension “.au”, which
should be disregarded in the assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly
similar. As such, the disputed domain name contains the entire Trade Mark without alteration.
...However, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the
Respondent’s default.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is identical to the Trade Mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...
2023-08-28 - Case Details
Substantive Elements of the Policy
The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark, having used it professionally since 2000.
...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 4
B. ...
2023-08-24 - 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 has trade mark rights in the PULTEGROUP mark. The disputed
domain name wholly incorporates its PULTEGROUP mark and is therefore confusingly similar to its
registered trade mark. The addition of the letter “s” or of the abbreviation for a United States incorporated
company “inc” is insufficient to prevent a finding of confusing similarity.
...
2023-08-16 - Case Details