It also relies upon the Respondent’s use of false addresses which is said to support a f inding of bad
faith.
B. Respondent
5.4 The Respondent did not f ile a formal Response replying to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. ...However, the Panel is
satisfied that the Respondent’s knowledge and intentions at the time of registration are clear enough f rom
the form of the Domain Name itself , and the content of the website operating f rom the Domain Name.
...
2025-04-30 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that it is apparent that the Respondent
registered the disputed domain name in order to trade-of f the Complainant’s goodwill attaching to its
DANSKO mark and to confuse consumers into believing that the disputed domain name is af f iliated or
associated with the Complainant when that is not the case. ...WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.
The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate
rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.
...
2025-07-21 - Case Details
WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 1.7 and
1.11.1.
Therefore, the Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate
rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.
...D2006-0483, where the panel found that, absent some contrary
evidence f rom a respondent, passive holding of a domain name does not constitute legitimate
noncommercial or fair use.
...
2025-07-02 - Case Details
It is notably the owner of the following trademark registrations:
- VOLCOM, United States trademark registration No. 1725875, with f irst use in commerce dating
September 30, 1991, filed on February 21, 1992, registered on October 20, 1992, regularly renewed
since then, and designating products of class 25,
- VOLCOM, United States trademark registration No. 2689830, filed on September 20, 2000, registered
on February 25, 2003, regularly renewed since then, and designating products of classes 9 (with f irst
use in commerce on August 15, 1993), 16 (with first use in commerce on May 31, 1991) and 18 (with
f irst use in commerce on July 20, 1994),
- (Stone Logo), United States trademark registration No. 2689825, f iled on
September 20, 2000, registered on February 25, 2003, regularly renewed since then, and designating
products of classes 9 (with first use in commerce on August 15, 1993), 16 (with f irst use in commerce
on May 31, 1991) and 18 (with f irst use in commerce on July 20, 1994).
...Taking the foregoing provisions
into consideration the Panel f inds as follows.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the f irst element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2023-10-20 - Case Details
This demonstrates that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad
faith to extract some commercial advantage from the Complainant and/or f rom Complainant’s prospective
f ranchisees/distributors.
The Respondent’s intentions of subsuming the trademark ZUDIO appears to be to attract Internet traf f ic,
dupe Internet users looking for f ranchise opportunities with the Complainant or to commit the f raud of
phishing. ...The disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark ZUDIO in its entirety, with the addition
of the term “f ranchise”. Previous panels have held that the reproduction of a famous or widely-known
trademark by an unaffiliated entity contributes for a f inding of bad faith. ...
2023-10-19 - Case Details
case=D2025-2311
page 3
d) the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona f ide of fering of
goods or services
e) the Respondent has not made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in
connection with a bona f ide of fering of goods or services; and
f ) the best Respondent has not made a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain
name.
...Although the addition of other terms (here, a hyphen and “f inance”) may bear on assessment of the second
and third elements, the Panel f inds the addition of such terms does not prevent a f inding of confusing
similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2025-12-05 - Case Details
The Complainant forwarded to the Center a message that purported to be an email dated October 16, 2025
f rom the Respondent to the Center which had come into the Complainant’s hands. The said message
acknowledged receipt of a notice f rom the Center together with an amended Complaint.
...Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here, claimed as
impersonation/passing of f , or other types of f raud can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a
respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.
...
2025-12-04 - Case Details
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.
The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 4
B. ...In the present case, the Panel notes that it is dif f icult to conceive of any plausible use of the Disputed
Domain Name by the unaf f iliated the Respondent that would amount to good faith use, given that the
Disputed Domain Name reproduces the Complainant’s Trademark in its entirety. ...
2025-09-11 - Case Details
PrivacyProtect.org / Sylvia Paras, WIPO Case No. D2011-2011 (f inding
bad faith where the respondent used the disputed domain name to attract Internet users who mistakenly
believed that the disputed domain name was af f iliated with the complainant).
...Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity here, (claimed impersonation/passing of f )
constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel f inds the
Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain names constitutes bad faith under the Policy.
...
2024-07-03 - Case Details
It is well established that
a domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered
by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the f irst element. This stems f rom
the fact that the domain name contains suf f iciently recognizable aspects of the relevant mark. ...See section 1.11.1 of
the WIPO Overview 3.0.
Given the above, the Panel f inds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s GE
AEROSPACE trademark for purposes of the Policy. ...
2025-08-27 - Case Details
The Complaint claims that the Complainant’s products, including in particular f loor
and wall tiles, are available under the trademark ASCALE in more than 150 countries.
Amongst other things, the Complainant promotes its products under the trademark ASCALE f rom a website
at “www.ascale.es”.
...https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 5
The Policy is intended to provide an ef f icient and expeditious process to deal with clear cases of
cybersquatting. To that end, it lays down a two stage process of “pleading” or brief ing – the f iling of a
Complaint and the f iling of a Response. ...
2023-11-30 - Case Details
Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not
prevent a f inding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. The Panel f inds the non-use of the
Domain Name does not prevent a f inding of bad faith in the circumstances of this proceeding. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that in the circumstances of this case, the passive holding of the
Domain Name does not prevent a f inding of bad faith under the Policy.
The Panel f inds that Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.
7. ...
2024-03-11 - Case Details
Under the circumstances,
the non-use of the disputed domain name cannot support a f inding of rights or legitimate interests.
The Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established.
...Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a f inding of bad faith under the
doctrine of passive holding. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel f inds the non-use of the
disputed domain name does not prevent a f inding of bad faith in the circumstances of this proceeding.
...
2024-02-19 - Case Details
According to the Complainant, the Respondent
is using the disputed domain name to market and sell products identical to those of the Complainant, while
copying content, visual elements and contact details f rom the Complainant’s of f icial website, thereby
misleading consumers into believing that the website is af f iliated with or operated by the Complainant.
...The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate
rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.
...
2026-01-29 - Case Details
- United States Trademark Registration No. 1,045,574, (f irst used in commerce March 4, 1975;
registered August 3, 1976), for use in connection with “conducting investigations and reporting on
individuals and f irms concerning credit, character and f inances”...Further, according to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences f rom the
Respondent’s failure to submit a Response as it considers appropriate.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the f irst element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2026-04-13 - Case Details
Complainant official website is accessed at “www.lamborghini.com” (the “Of f icial
LAMBORGHINI Marks” Website through Complainant’s of f icial domain name which
incorporates the LAMBORGHINI Marks and which Complainant uses to promote Lamborghini cars in
dif ferent languages worldwide on the Internet.
...Although the addition of other terms may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel
f inds the addition of such terms does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity between the disputed
domain name and the LAMBORGHINI Marks for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2024-02-19 - Case Details
At the time of this Complaint,
the disputed domain name no longer resolved to any website content, but according to the screengrab
evidence submitted by the Complainant it previously resolved to a website titled “Sticker Rican” that
purported to sell stickers similar to the Complainant’s of f icial products and used a logo similar to the
Complainant’s of f icial design trademark.
5. ...Thus, the Panel
f inds that the Complainant’s rights in the STICKERICAN trademark have been established pursuant to the
f irst element of the Policy.
...
2025-12-18 - Case Details
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.
The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate
rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.
...The fact that the website to which the First Disputed Domain Name resolved was disabled af ter the f iling of
the initial Complaint, and the Second Disputed Domain Name registered shortly thereaf ter, resolving to a
website substantially similar to the f irst, further supports a f inding of bad faith.
...
2025-04-22 - Case Details
It also notes that these modified versions are not available on of f icial app stores and
must be downloaded f rom third-party sources, including the Respondent’s website.
...Accordingly, the Panel f inds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
WHATSAPP trademark.
...
2025-12-04 - Case Details
The Domain Names include the earlier Complainant’s Trade Marks and differ only by the addition of the word
“of f”. Adding descriptive, generic or geographic terms to a trademark in a domain name is not suf f icient to
avoid misleading Internet users and to avoid creating a likelihood and confusion with the Trade Marks, which
clearly stand out in the Domain Names. ...In addition, the Respondent’s use of the Domain Names does not constitute a bona fide
of fering of goods or services. The f irst Domain Name resolves to a website which, using the Trade Marks,
creates the false impression of a relationship with or authorization of its services by the Complainant, while it
does not contain a disclaimer or clarif ication with respect to the non-existence of such af f iliation. ...
2025-08-27 - Case Details