Notably, the Complainant contends that:
- The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the well-known and globally
recognised BCBG and BCBGMAXAZRIA trademarks in which the Complainant has rights. ...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.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-05-14 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to its VEON
trademark, and that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.group” is irrelevant to the necessary
comparison.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it is the owner of registered trademark rights for the mark VEON. ...
2024-05-14 - 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...
2024-05-08 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the f irst element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
7. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
8. Decision...
2024-05-01 - Case Details
See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.3.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Procedural 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...
2024-05-22 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The Panel finds the mark is reproduced and 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.
Although the addition of other terms here, “ai”, 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. ...
2026-02-27 - 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. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-12-30 - Case Details
In
any event the supplemental filings would not have affected the Panel's conclusion in these administrative
proceedings.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the f irst element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The entirety of the BORBONE trade mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the
disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the BORBONE trade mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
...
2025-12-29 - 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
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-12-24 - 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...
2026-01-30 - Case Details
case=D2019-2784
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the f irst element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The Panel f inds that the entirety of the Complainant’s mark is reproduced and immediately recognizable
within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
...
2026-01-29 - 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...
2025-10-16 - 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.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondents
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-10-10 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is identical
or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SANOFI marks and the mere addition of the term “the”, does not
eliminate similarity where the SANOFI mark remains clearly recognizable.
...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. ...
2026-02-25 - Case Details
Accordingly, while the Panel has considered the parties’ unsolicited submissions, it accords them no
dispositive weight in its Decision.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to demonstrate that the disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-02-23 - Case Details
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 4
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...
2025-10-24 - Case Details
In accordance with paragraph 14(a) of the Rules, if the Respondent does not submit a Response, in the
absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute based upon the Complaint.
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...
2025-07-16 - Case Details
Those elements are:
(i) that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which
the Complainant has rights;
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and,
(iii) that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...case=D2012-1909
page 4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it is the owner of the RE=BEL trademarks. The Panel has doubts that
the term “rebelapp” is conceptually confusingly similar to RE=BEL. ...
2025-07-25 - Case Details
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following
elements is satisfied:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark 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. ...
2025-08-18 - Case Details
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...
2025-07-02 - Case Details