Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant contends that it is the owner of the ALLY and ALLY BANK marks. The applicable Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) in the disputed domain name is a standard registration requirement and is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. ...Registered and used in bad faith
The Complainant asserts that by registering a domain name entirely comprised of the Complainant’s ALLY BANK mark and confusingly similar to its and domain names, the Respondent has demonstrated a knowledge of and familiarity with the Complainant’s brand. ...
2020-10-08 - Case Details
The Panel has, however, reviewed the Response and considered it in the discussion below.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has provided evidence establishing that it has trademark rights in the TEVA mark through registration in the United Arab Emirates, thereby satisfying the threshold requirement of having trademark rights for purposes of standing to file a case under paragraph 6(a)(i) of the Policy.
In comparing Complainant’s TEVA mark with the disputed domain name, , the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with Complainant’s mark. The disputed domain name contains Complainant’s TEVA mark in its entirety. ...
2021-01-04 - Case Details
Those elements are:
(i) that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and
(iii) that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it has registered trademark rights in the marks EMSCULPT and EMSCULPT NEO. ...
2021-07-13 - Case Details
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has provided evidence establishing that it has trademark rights in the CME and CME GROUP marks through registrations in numerous jurisdictions including in Malaysia, which is referenced in both disputed domain names. ...In comparing Complainant’s CME and CME GROUP marks with the disputed domain names, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar with Complainant’s marks. Both disputed domain names contain Complainant’s marks in their entirety. ...
2021-02-09 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant claims that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its earlier trademarks, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the owner of numerous CARREFOUR formative and word trademarks, including trademark registrations for CARREFOUR PASS, as well as domain names formed with CARREFOUR, all registered and used in relation with retail services.
...
2021-12-27 - 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...
2026-02-20 - Case Details
In summary, the Respondent contends:
(i) the Complainant has no registered trademark rights in “SNS Industrial”, “SNS Automation”, or similar, and
the Respondent denies that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to “SNS Industrial Group”;
(ii) the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests, including because 7693320 Canada Inc, acquired by
the Respondent, has been registered in Quebec as doing business under the name “SNS Automation” since
2010, was widely known by that name, and the disputed domain name was an asset of 7693320 Canada Inc
at the time of the 2019 share purchase transaction; and
(iii) the Respondent denies “hijacking” or “stealing” the disputed domain name. ...Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2026-02-10 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant does not assert registered trademark rights. As noted above, the Complainant asserts
common law trademark rights in “thecoromandel.com”. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-09-26 - Case Details
Complainant
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
The Complainant has trademark registrations for PANALYTICAL in many jurisdictions. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-09-08 - Case Details
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its THY trademark, and
submits that the term “thy” represents the initials of the Complainant’s name in the Turkish language (Türk
Hava Yollari) and is a generally recognized term, especially within Türkiye.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-12-16 - Case Details
WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third
Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.11.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Factual Background
5. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
6. Decision...
2024-12-19 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant holds rights in the trademark TEMU through registration and use
demonstrated in the record. The Panel finds further that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to that
mark. The Domain Name entirely incorporates the mark TEMU and adds the term “app.” ...
2024-04-23 - Case Details
The disputed domain names are, according to the Complainant, confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademark, creating a likelihood of confusion given the reproduction of its trademark which is clearly
recognizable as the leading element of the disputed domain names, with the addition of the descriptive term
“tenders” (in all disputed domain names) as well as the addition of the geographical abbreviation “qa” for
Qatar in two cases and the addition of a hyphen in one of the disputed domain names.
...B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established its rights in the QATARENERGY trademark.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names reproduce the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety. ...
2022-11-24 - Case Details
This Panel is satisfied, in view of the evidence submitted and on balance that the disputed domain names
are indeed subject to a common control and that consolidation would be fair and equitable to all Parties.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights over the TOTAL and TOTAL ENERGIES trademarks duly
registered.
...For the reasons above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s trademark.
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a non-exclusive list of circumstances that may indicate the
Respondents’ rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. ...
2023-01-11 - Case Details
The burden of proof of each element is borne by the Complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the IQ and IQOS marks.
...For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to trademarks in
which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant has satisfied the first condition in paragraph 4(a) of the
Policy.
...
2023-04-13 - Case Details
Those requirements are:
(i) the 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 domain name; and
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademark. The condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
...
2023-08-25 - Case Details
Complainants
The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainants’ META QUEST, META
and QUEST trademarks.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the META QUEST
mark, among others.
...
2023-08-21 - Case Details
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. ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks
and concludes that the Complainant has established the first element of the Complaint.
...
2023-02-08 - 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...
2023-12-18 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different Disputed
Domain Name registrants (referred to above as “Respondents”) in a single proceeding.
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 mark is reproduced within each of the Disputed Domain Names.
Accordingly, the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the BARRACUDA Mark for the purposes
of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
...
2023-12-15 - Case Details