Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its well-known
trademark STEFANEL, despite its combination with the common term “online”.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-05-03 - 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. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-05-13 - 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...
2024-05-10 - 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. ...The Panel finds the entirety of the HAVAS MEDIA trade mark is reproduced within the disputed domain
name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the HAVAS MEDIA trade mark for
the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
...
2024-05-08 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the trademark MICHELIN through registration and use
demonstrated in the record. The Panel also concludes that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to that
mark. The MICHELIN mark is clearly recognizable within the Domain Name, and the additional word “man”
does not prevent the confusing similarity between the mark and the Domain Name.
...
2024-05-21 - Case Details
Respondent
5.4 The Respondent did not reply 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 and Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-03-24 - Case Details
For the evaluation of this case, the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0, and, where appropriate,
will decide consistent with the consensus views stated 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...
2025-03-21 - 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...
2025-03-19 - 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...
2025-03-18 - Case Details
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. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-12-10 - 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...
2025-03-05 - Case Details
In considering these elements, paragraph 15(a) of the Rules
provides that the Panel shall decide the Complaint on the basis of statements and documents submitted and
in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any other rules or principles of law that the Panel deems
applicable.
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...
2025-02-18 - 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...
2024-05-07 - Case Details
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.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-04-17 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has shown rights regarding a trademark or service mark for the purpose of the Policy.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-02-27 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark or
service mark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant owns trademark registration for the
trademark FEBERG. ...Respondent
7. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
8. Decision...
2025-02-24 - 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...
2025-02-21 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant holds rights in the marks ROTHSCHILD and ROTHSCHILD & CO through
registrations demonstrated in the record. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to
those marks. The mark ROTHSCHILD is entirely reproduced in the Domain Name and is clearly
recognizable within it. ...
2024-04-08 - 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...
2024-04-03 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...In the present case the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the FERM LIVING
mark in which the Complainant has rights since it only omits the first “i” in the word “living”.
...
2024-03-13 - Case Details