The Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its trade mark. The Complainant explains that its trade mark is made up of an invented word composed of “Bel” as in Belgium, “fi” as in finance and the English word “us”. ...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 owns EUTM registration no. 010581205 for BELFIUS, registered on May 24, 2012. ...
2020-09-09 - Case Details
The Complainant subsequently withdrew its request to add additional domain names to the dispute and therefore the Panel need not decide on the initial request.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights in the VITAL BOOK and VITALSOURCE trademarks.
...The Panel decides that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and the first element of the Policy has therefore been established.
...
2020-09-01 - Case Details
Substantive Matters
To succeed, in accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must satisfy the Panel that:
(i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical with 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;
(iii) the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the BOSTON DYNAMICS trademark. Although the Complainant’s earliest registered trademark was not registered until after the date the Disputed Domain Name was registered that does not matter for the purposes of establishing the first element.
...
2020-08-10 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its registered HAWKERS marks. Pointing to gaps in the Wayback Machine history and the landing pages offering the Domain Name for sale in 2017 and 2018, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent likely acquired the Domain Name “recently”, probably in 2017, after the Complainant’s mark was well known internationally. ...This is specific, new evidence and the Panel will consider it, as it also takes into account the Respondent’s supplemental filing and attachments in reply.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element of a UDRP complaint “functions primarily as a standing requirement” and entails “a straightforward comparison between the complainant’s trademark and the domain name”. ...
2020-08-07 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Having considered the evidence of the Complainant’s registered rights in the mark AIRLINK as set out in section 4 above the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established ownership of such rights predating the date of registration of the disputed domain name.
...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark AIRLINK in which the Complainant has rights within paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2020-07-31 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has registered trademark rights in the trademark OSRAM through registration and use demonstrated in the record. The Panel also concludes that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to that mark. The distinctive OSRAM mark is clearly recognizable within the Domain Name. ...
2021-02-15 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its earlier trademarks, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the owner of numerous BOUYGUES formative and word trademarks, including trademark registrations for BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION, all registered and used in relation with construction services.
...
2021-01-25 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated rights in the PERMEACARE trademark through its registration in the EUIPO.
...WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7 (“in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, […] the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing”).
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established that the Domain Name is identical to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2020-08-19 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to 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 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademarks LOKAI since it entirely contains this trademark and only prefix the dictionary term “shop”.
...
2020-08-14 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its registered CNO and CNO FINANCIAL GROUP trademarks, incorporating the characters “cno” and adding “fg”, which could be read as the abbreviation for “financial group”. ...Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to divest a respondent of a domain name, a complainant must demonstrate each of the following:
(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2020-08-21 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Names incorporate Complainant’s trademark MILLIMAN in its entirety with the mere replacement of the last vowel “a” with an “e”. ...D2002-0122).
The Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the MILLIMAN mark of Complainant.
Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2020-09-21 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The Respondent is using a Domain Name that is
confusingly similar to the GLO Mark to sell products, be they genuine or otherwise, in competition with the
Complainant and without the Complainant’s approval.
...
2026-04-23 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainants contend that (i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to
the first Complainant’s trademark; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed
Domain Name; and (iii) the Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. ...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. ...
2026-03-04 - Case Details
WIPO
Overview 3.1, section 1.8. Accordingly, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Mark for the
purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7.
The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-06-08 - 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...
2026-06-04 - 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...
2026-03-25 - 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...
2026-03-24 - 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 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...
2026-02-12 - Case Details
See
WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions, (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.3.
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...
2026-04-20 - 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 or Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-04-17 - Case Details