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...
2025-05-13 - 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 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...
2025-04-28 - Case Details
D2012-1909).
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Discussion and Findings
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-06-12 - Case Details
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 4
6.2 Substantive Issues
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...
2025-06-05 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it is the owner of registered trademark rights for the mark ICOY. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-06-24 - Case Details
case=D2010-0540
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 4
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...
2025-05-01 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark
G4S. The Complainant alleged that “the Disputed Domain Name includes the entirety of the G4S mark with
the addition of the words ‘secure’ and ‘solutions’”. ...Discussion and Findings
The analysis of the Complainant’s arguments and of the presented evidence leads to the conclusion that the
Complaint should be upheld, based on the following grounds:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2025-05-01 - Case Details
For this reason, UDRP panels have generally dismissed factual allegations that are not supported by
any bona fide documentary or other credible evidence.
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...
2025-05-30 - 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...
2025-05-30 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant argues that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its well-known
PETROBRAS trademark, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and the addition of the term “win” does not
prevent a finding of confusing similarity.
...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. ...
2025-12-03 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s MIGROS mark.
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?...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. ...
2025-12-03 - Case Details
As the Panel has reviewed the material and taken it into account, and there has been no objection from the
Respondent, it is appropriate that the Panel include the supplemental filing in the record of the proceeding.
page 4
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Factual Background
5. Discussion and Findings
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-04-30 - 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. ...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
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-06-05 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Discussion and Findings
6.1 Preliminary Issue: Language of the Proceeding
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-06-04 - 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...
2024-04-15 - 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...
2024-04-12 - Case Details
Based on the available record, the Panel finds the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the
trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The first element of paragraph 4(a) 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...
2024-04-11 - Case Details
The Panel will nonetheless briefly state its factual and legal conclusions for the sake of certainty.
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...
2024-05-29 - Case Details
Respondent’s counsel did send an
email to the Center stating that Respondent denied all of the allegations in the Complaint, but he never
followed up with any additional substantive response.
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...
2024-05-24 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that it owns registered trade mark rights as set out above and that the
disputed domain name incorporates its BLIK mark and is therefore confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trade mark. It says that the inclusion of the descriptive term “casino” in the disputed domain name does not
prevent a finding of confusing similarity.
...Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-05-15 - Case Details