page 3
Notably, the Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its BWIN trademark, as it
reproduces it in its entirety with the mere addition of the term “Chile”, which refers to one of the jurisdictions
where the Complainant offers its services.
...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. ...
2025-06-27 - Case Details
On this record, the Panel is satisfied that the
Complainants share such an interest and a common grievance, and that consolidation is appropriate.
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...
2025-12-17 - Case Details
On this record, the Panel is satisfied
that the Complainants share such an interest and a common grievance, and that consolidation is
appropriate.
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...
2025-12-11 - Case Details
Under paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, “[a] Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and
documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that
it 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...
2025-12-09 - 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...
2025-12-05 - Case Details
case=D2024-0962
page 4
6.2 Substantive Matters
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 Matters
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-12-05 - 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...
2025-11-24 - 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...
2025-11-20 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to divest the Respondent of a disputed domain name, the
Complainant must demonstrate each of the following:
(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 has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Given the limited
utility of the unsolicited supplemental filing, therefore, the Panel does not propose to admit it into the record.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element that the Complainants must establish is that the disputed domain names are identical with,
or confusingly similar to, the Complainants’ trademark rights.
...
2025-11-12 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following:
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 has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-01-26 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel f inds that Complainant has rights in the mark LATHAM & WATKINS through registration and use
demonstrated in the record. ...The Panel also concludes that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the LW mark. The Domain Name
entirely incorporates the mark LW and adds a hyphen and the word “group”. ...
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. ...Complainant
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-01-06 - Case Details
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 4
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...
2025-02-14 - 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...
2025-04-01 - 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
7. Decision...
2025-04-01 - 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...
2025-04-22 - Case Details
Please explain the nature of the claim and options
to resolve the situation without problems”.
7. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first 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...
2025-02-26 - Case Details
The Panel will therefore proceed to analyze whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are
satisfied.
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...
2025-08-26 - Case Details
The Complainants must prove in this administrative proceeding that each of the aforesaid three elements is
present in order to obtain the transfer of the disputed domain name.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The entirety of the ATACADAO trademark is reproduced 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 “seucartao” and “brasil” may bear on assessment of the second and
third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity
between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2025-08-25 - Case Details
Further, according to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences from Respondent's
failure to submit a Response as it considers appropriate.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
First, 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...
2025-01-24 - Case Details