Those elements are that:
(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.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it is the owner of registered trademark rights in the mark ROCCA.
...
2026-09-07 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainants must prove each of the
following:
(i) that the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a
trademark or service mark in which the Complainants have 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.
6.1 First preliminary procedural issue: the Parties’ Supplemental Filings
Before entering into the merits of the case, the Panel addresses the issue of the unsolicited supplemental
filings submitted by the Parties to the Center.
...The Panel finds that the fact the Second Complainant is the co-owner of trademark registrations for
HYPEFLY on which the Complaint is based, which are co-owned by the third Complainant (and, in at least
one case, also by the first Complainant), and the Second Complainant’s role as an owner and principal of the
first Complainant, are sufficient basis for the second Complainant to proceed with this proceeding on behalf
of the Complainants collectively.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2026-08-13 - Case Details
These elements are that:
(i) respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) respondent’s domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Each of the aforesaid three elements must be proved by a complainant to warrant relief.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In order to successfully pursue a complaint under the Policy, a complainant
must first establish that it has rights in a trademark or service mark. ...
2006-02-21 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is not identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade marks. It is identical to the Respondent’s trade mark and its trading name.
...The Panel would add, however, that neither of the supplemental filings would have made any difference to the outcome of this case.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the mark WINRAR by virtue of its Indian registered trade mark for that term. ...
2015-06-15 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
7.1 The Policy, paragraph 4(a) provides that the Complainant must prove each of the following in order to succeed in any administrative proceeding:
•
That the Respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
•
That the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
•
That the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
7.2 The Policy, paragraph 4(c) sets out circumstances which, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved shall demonstrate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interest in the domain name in issue.
7.3 The Policy, paragraph 4(b) sets out circumstances which, again in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.
7.4 As stated, the circumstances set out in paragraphs 4(b) and 4(c) of the Policy are not exclusionary. ...Accordingly, the Panel will now address the requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
7.16 The domain name in issue is identical with the HESCO BASTION trademark asserted by the Complainant. ...
2003-01-13 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its BLUEBOOK
marks. In addition to its trademark application for BLUEBOOK, the Complainant contends that it has
developed enormous goodwill in the BLUEBOOK trademark, and the BLUEBOOK trademark has become an
identifier exclusively related to the products and services provided by the Complainant. ...
2026-06-19 - Case Details
Substantive Matters
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
s PAYPORTER trademark
- “ ”
s
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
“ ”
see
may demonstrate a
respondent s
services; or
to the Respondent has submitted -
-
e present dispute, it had taken demonstrable preparatory steps to use the disputed domain name
“ - ”
The Complainant s position
) an
a
putative early-
the Respondent a party to the cases that led to t
and administrative decisions
particular relevant decisions
concern the
As set out in
, inter alia, evidence
- and correspondence and
- For this purpose, the Respondent has submitted a screen print
e set out in the timeline at
hatsApp
app)
company called ‘
, nor their combination, prove concrete a
business The -6) does not prove that actual business
discussions took place, and in any event, the
established; - and does not
The
-
communicatio
potential the disputed domain
name “ ”
person
Respondent does not support its
submission that it has taken
- in accor i) The
Panel also notes that the Respondent has not invoked any other itimate interest in the
ii) iii)
concludes
Complainant has made out a
C. ...
2026-07-24 - Case Details
page 3
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks and to the
Complainant’s business and trading name. ...
2026-05-21 - Case Details
Since the Panel finds that it can proceed to a Decision on the available case file, and in view of the Decision
outcome, the Panel need not consider the Respondent’s supplemental filing or the request for additional time
in which to file one.
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name is plainly identical to the Complainant’s registered PRESONATE mark. ...
2023-05-08 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated it owns registered trademark rights in the famous GEICO mark, and has
shown that no other entity has rights in or uses the Complainant’s mark. ...
2023-05-23 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2023-09-13 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows.
The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the BRC Trademark.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.
...
2023-10-05 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated it owns registered trademark rights in the COMFORT KEEPERS mark.
...
2023-09-22 - Case Details
Pursuant to Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(i)-(iii) of the ADR Rules, the Panel finds that:
- The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right
or rights are recognized or established by national law of a Member State and / or European
Union law...
2023-06-20 - 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.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-01-05 - 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. ...
2024-11-15 - Case Details
Besides, evidence indicates that the prior registrant and the
Respondent are the one and the same and the emails from the prior registrant to the Complainant
demonstrates sufficient knowledge of English to be able to understand this decision in English; specifically,
the prior registrant signed one of its emails as “Jinsoo”, the same name that the Respondent used in
corresponding with the WIPO, and the name on the prior registrant’s email address is “Boosting Inc”, the
same as the name on the Respondent’s email address.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant owns trademark registrations for the term DURACAR. The disputed domain name solely
consists of the term “duracar”, and is therefore, identical to the Complainant’s trademark.
...
2023-01-04 - Case Details
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 registered trade mark rights in various jurisdictions for its
LEGO word mark as mentioned in the section 4 above. ...
2022-06-16 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel determines that rendering this decision in
English is fair and procedurally efficient given the circumstances of this case.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant owns registrations to trademarks that consist of the text GOPPION CAFFE and a design.
...
2022-06-21 - Case Details
Pursuant to Article 21(1) of the Commission Regulation (EU) No. 874/2004 and Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(i)-
(iii) of the ADR Rules, the Panel finds that:
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right or rights
are recognized or established by national law of a Member State and / or European Union law.
...
2022-11-04 - Case Details