No. 2,645,625, registered on November
5, 2002, with a f irst use date of September 30, 1948).
According to the WhoIs records, the disputed domain name was registered on September 2, 2025. ...case=D2014-0657
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 3
It is well established that the generic Top-Level Domain, such as “.com,” is disregarded when evaluating
identity or confusing similarity under the f irst element. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1.
The Panel therefore f inds that the Complainant has established the f irst element under the Policy.
...
2025-12-23 - Case Details
Factual Background
The Complainant is a French non-prof it association managing the Apicil Group’s human and material
resources, including its domain names. Apicil Group is active in the f ields of health insurance, personal
protection, savings and f inancial services, and retirement, employing over 2,600 people and serving
nearly 2 million policyholders.
...The
Complainant adds that the Respondent’s conduct could also facilitate f raudulent impersonation over
page 3
email given that the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s own domain name dif fer in only the f inal
letter, especially in light of the Complainant’s activities in the f inancial and insurance sectors. ...
2025-09-18 - Case Details
In his response to Procedural Order No. 1, the Complainant stated as follows:
“The Complainant conf irms that it is the owner of the NETBAHIS trademark, which was acquired by
assignment prior to the f iling of the Complaint.
At the time of f iling, the trademark registration process was ongoing, and the Complainant had already
submitted the of f icial provisional / temporary ownership documentation evidencing the acquisition of
trademark rights. ...The Complainant was given three opportunities to properly set out his case, and was specifically encouraged
to seek representation f rom counsel, which the Complainant failed to do.
The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has not been established.
7. ...
2026-02-12 - Case Details
Respondent registered each of the disputed domain names on August 21, 2023. At the time this Complaint
was f iled, the disputed domain names all resolved to websites that attempted to impersonate Complainant by
misappropriating Complainant’s standard character and design HEADOUT trademark as well as the content
of Complainant’s of f icial website.
5. ...D2023-3866; “as an immediate and proactive measure, Complainant had
reported the inf ringing websites hosted under the disputed domain names, and these websites were
consequently blocked after being found to be inf ringing”; and Respondent’s use of the disputed domain
names and Respondent’s websites as part of a phishing or otherwise f raudulent scheme to impersonate
Complainant by misappropriating Complainant’s HEADOUT trademarks as well as other content f rom
Complainant’s of f icial website.
...
2024-01-17 - Case Details
According to
SimilarWeb.com, Complainant’s Of f icial VICTAULIC Mark Website saw an average of 169.5 thousand
visitors per month, during the three-month period f rom June 2023 - August 2023. ...Accordingly, the Panel f inds the disputed domain name
confusingly similar or identical to the VICTAULIC Mark in which Complainant has rights and Complainant has
satisf ied its burden under the f irst element of the Policy.
...
2024-01-03 - Case Details
Its trade
mark registrations for the mark DULUX include the following:
- China Trade Mark Registration No. 53073, f iled on June 15, 1966;
- China Trade Mark Registration No. 1902944, filed on March 14,2001, registered on August 7, 2002;
- China Trade Mark Registration No. 3278391, filed on August 19, 2002, registered on June 7, 2004;
- China Trade Mark Registration No. 11346741, f iled on August 14, 2012, registered on
January 14, 2014;
- China Trade Mark Registration No. 11346661, f iled on August 14, 2012, registered on
January 14, 2014;
- China Trade Mark Registration No. 12262453, f iled on March 14, 2013, registered on
August 21, 2014;
- Hong Kong, China Trade Mark Registration No. 19350016, filed and registered on July 11, 1934; and
- Hong Kong, China Trade Mark Registration No. 301167660, f iled and registered on July 24, 2008.
...The Panel accordingly f inds that the f irst element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been satisf ied.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights
or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...
2023-11-02 - Case Details
The additions
of the phrase “footwearhub” does not prevent the Complainant’s trademark f rom being recognizable in the
Disputed Domain Name. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.shop” is viewed as a standard
registration requirement and as such may be disregarded under the f irst element confusing similarity test.
...Noting the above considerations, it is not necessary for the Panel to make any ultimate
determination as to the nature of the goods, as the evidence clearly shows the Respondent has attempted to
pass itself of f as the Complainant.
The Panel f inds that the Complainant has satisf ied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
7. ...
2024-09-26 - Case Details
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. However, the Panel f inds that the “A” device mark is not suf f iciently
distinctive to provide a basis for a f inding of confusing similarity with the disputed domain name in these
circumstances.
...Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (here, claimed
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.
...
2024-07-08 - Case Details
The gTLD in a domain name “is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded
under the f irst element confusing similarity test.” WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1.
Accordingly, the Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
...case=D2023-1050
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 6
business), and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed domain name
does not prevent a f inding of bad faith under the Policy.
Accordingly, the Panel f inds that Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.
7. ...
2025-11-26 - Case Details
As such,
the TLD “.org” in the disputed domain name is disregarded for the purposes of the f irst element confusing
similarity test.
The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
...Collectively, this falsely creates
the impression that the disputed domain name is that of the Complainant, or related to, linked to or af f iliated
with the Complainant.
The Panel f inds that the composition of the disputed domain name is such as to carry a risk of implied
af f iliation that cannot constitute fair use, as it effectively impersonates the Complainant, or suggests affiliation
with, or sponsorship or endorsement by, the Complainant. ...
2025-08-18 - Case Details
In this case, the fact that the Disputed Domain
Name was registered before the Complainant acquired (registered) trademark rights, does not by itself
preclude the Complainant’s standing to file a UDRP case, nor the Panel’s f inding of identity or confusing
similarity under the f irst element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.1.3.
...It is well established that
where a domain name is used to generate revenue in respect of “click through” traf f ic, and that traf f ic has
been attracted because of the name’s association with the Complainant, such use amounts to use in bad
faith, see for example Shangri-La International Hotel Management Limited v. ...
2024-09-04 - Case Details
In conclusion on this topic, the Panel finds that the Complainant has not proved that the disputed domain
name was registered in bad faith. That f inding renders the question of use in bad faith moot. Accordingly,
based on the available record, the Panel f inds the third element of the Policy has not been established.
...It is generally accepted
that mere lack of success of a complaint is not itself suf f icient for such a f inding.
Here, the Respondent asserts that the Panel should f ind Reverse Domain Name Hijacking because the
disputed domain name was registered before the Complainant had secured international trademark rights,
and the Complainant knew that there was no bad faith intent on the part of the Respondent. ...
2023-10-16 - Case Details
The Respondent is not using the disputed domain names in connection with any bona f ide
of fering of goods or services. The Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant. The Respondent is not
af f iliated with the Complainant in any way. ...The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name misleads
consumers into thinking that the website is operated by or af f iliated with the Complainant. As such, the
Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name cannot be considered bona f ide.
...
2025-04-28 - Case Details
Thus, the Panel f inds that the Complainant’s rights in the VIZIO trademark have been established pursuant
to the f irst element of the Policy.
...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. ...
2025-08-27 - Case Details
The following chronology is largely drawn f rom the documents f iled by the Parties:
On June 19, 2020, the Respondent was incorporated.
...The proposal does include an organizational chart or f low chart identifying certain individuals as
being f rom “Nexus Point”. On the basis of the sending of the emails, therefore, it could be that the
Respondent was using the term “Nexus Point”.
...
2025-08-27 - Case Details
The Respondents are Name Redacted, and Name Redacted 0 F
1.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain names and are registered with
Squarespace Domains II LLC (the “Registrar”). 1 F
2
3. ...WIPO Overview 3.0,
section 1.8.
Based on the available record, 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 non-exclusive list of circumstances that may indicate the
Respondent’s rights to or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. ...
2023-10-16 - Case Details
While the addition of other terms, here “meds”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements,
the Panel f inds the addition of such term does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity between the
Domain Name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...As such, the Panel f inds
that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in relation to the Domain Name.
...
2023-11-02 - Case Details
International trademark registration number 900154 for LACTALIS (f igurative mark) registered on July 27,
2006, in classes 29, 30 and 35.
Colombian trademark registration number 484725 for LACTALIS (f igurative mark) registered on
December 24, 2013, in class 29.
...As such,
the ccTLD “.co” in the disputed domain name is disregarded for the purposes of the f irst element confusing
similarity test.
The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
...
2025-08-20 - 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.
...However, the
Respondent’s failure to file a Response may result in the Panel drawing appropriate inferences f rom such
default. The Panel may also accept all reasonable and supported allegations and inferences f lowing f rom
the Complainant as true (see Entertainment Shopping AG v. ...
2025-08-18 - Case Details
page 2
The Panel has not received any requests f rom the Complainant or the Respondent regarding further
submissions, waivers or extensions of deadlines, and the Panel has not found it necessary to request any
further information f rom the Parties.
...The Complainant also operates on the Internet, its of f icial website being at “www.theleela.com”.
The Complainant provided evidence in support of the above.
...
2024-03-06 - Case Details