The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names , f inex.com>, f inex.net>, and
(collectively referred to as the “Domain Names”) are registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...The addition of the terms “finadvisor”, “-finex”, “-f inex”, and “fintech” in the Domain Names does not prevent
a f inding of confusing similarity between the Domain Names and the LPL trademark. ...
2025-12-02 - Case Details
Although the addition of other terms, here “tv”, 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
disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...In the present case, the Panel first notes that Complainant has submitted evidence suf f icient to support a
f inding of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name under Policy paragraph
4(b)(iv).
...
2024-02-22 - Case Details
The Response was filed in English with
the Center on May 30, 2025. The Respondent further f iled an amended Response in English on June 5,
2025.
On June 13, 2025, the Complainant submitted an unsolicited supplemental f iling in English. ...On July 11, 2025, the Complainant submitted another unsolicited supplemental f iling in English. As a
response, the Respondent submitted another unsolicited supplemental f iling in Chinese on the same day.
4. ...
2025-07-25 - Case Details
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. ...WIPO Overview 3.0, section
1.7.
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.
...
2026-02-05 - 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.
...They are currently both inactive when accessing f rom a computer, while
they are visible when accessing f rom a mobile device.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. ...
2024-03-20 - Case Details
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.
...In view of such use of the disputed domain name, the Panel f inds that the
Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona f ide of fering of goods or
services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert
consumers or to tarnish the Complainant’s trademark.
...
2025-04-08 - Case Details
page 2
On February 6, 2024, the Center received an unsolicited supplemental f iling f rom the Complainant.
On February 12, 2024, the Panel issued, pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Rules, Administrative Panel Order
No. 1 inviting:
1. ...If the Respondent submitted a supplemental f iling pursuant to the Panel Order, permitting the
Complainant to submit a supplemental f iling in reply to that supplemental f iling by February 23, 2024.
...
2024-03-11 - Case Details
This email contained a request to replace an earlier invoice issued on July 31, 2025, by the Complainant to
this customer by an identical invoice except for the IBAN and BIC mentions which were changed to a bank
account at a United Kingdom bank unknown to the Complainant. It should be noted that the f irst and last
names which were used in this email address composed from the disputed domain name correspond with
the f irst and last name of the f inancial manager of the Complainant.
...To the contrary: the Complainant has provided evidence showing that the disputed domain name has been
used by the Respondent to create an email address which was subsequently used to try to lure a customer
of the Complainant into settling an invoice issued by the Complainant by making a payment to a bank
account which did not correspond to the bank account of the Complainant. It should be noted that the f irst
and last names which were used in this email address composed f rom the disputed domain name
correspond with the f irst and last name of the f inancial manager of the Complainant.
...
2025-12-29 - Case Details
WIPO Overview 3.1,
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
Panel further notes that the Respondent’s website fails to accurately and prominently disclose its
non-af f iliation with the Complainant. Rather, the Respondent’s website claims that it is “the OFFICIAL
Merchandise Store” and an “Of f icially Licensed Pee Wee’s Playhouse Merch Store”. ...
2026-04-09 - Case Details
Based on the available record, the Panel f inds Complainant has established unregistered trademark or
service mark rights for the purposes of the Policy. ...WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
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 list of circumstances in which Respondent may demonstrate rights or
legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.
...
2023-12-15 - Case Details
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
As to , the Panel f inds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name,
despite the deletion of the letter “r” f rom the Complainant’s TIMBRO mark. ...Moreover, where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain names, the addition of
other terms, such as “trading” and “tradng”, does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the f irst
element. Section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.
Therefore, based on the available record, the Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been
established.
...
2023-10-09 - Case Details
No. 3,170,687 for CANTOR (stylized) (registered November 14, 2006) for use in connection
with, inter alia, “f inancial services”.
- U.S. Reg. No. 2,682,691 for CANTOR FITZGERALD (registered on February 4, 2003) for use in
connection with, inter alia, “f inancial services”.
...Further, as set forth in section 1.8 of WIPO Overview 3.0: “Where the relevant trademark is
recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive,
geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity under
the f irst element.” Here, the geographic terms “us” and “uk” and the term “fx” do not prevent a f inding of
confusing similarity. ...
2025-06-26 - Case Details
Based on the foregoing guidance, the Panel makes the following f indings and conclusions based on the
allegations and evidence contained in the Complaint and reasonable inferences drawn f rom the evidence
presented.
...Walter C.
Parker and Carol F. Morris, WIPO Case No. D2020-0593 (the addition of the term “f ranchise” does not
negate a f inding of confusing similarity).
...
2023-10-05 - Case Details
The Parties
The Complainant is Off ice Ally, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Nelson
Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, United States.
The Respondent is Lue Gilson, Of f ice Ally, United States, self -represented.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name f iceallymagic.com> is registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC (the
“Registrar”).
3. ...It is implausible to
believe that one planning to offer services in the business-support space under the name “of f ice ally” would
not have encountered the Complainant’s established brand and website. Continuing with such plans af ter
acquiring that knowledge supports a f inding that the Respondent was targeting the Complainant and its
mark.
...
2025-12-04 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center
notif ied Respondent’s default on April 2, 2024.
The Center appointed Gabriel F. Leonardos as the sole panelist in this matter on April 5, 2024. The Panel
f inds that it was properly constituted. .../Gabriel F. Leonardos/
Gabriel F. Leonardos
Sole Panelist
Date: April 19, 2024
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
DinoTech Limited v. ...
2024-04-25 - Case Details
Other industry
recognition includes “Supplier of the Year” f rom Performance Foodservice Group, and “Supplier of the Year”,
“Dry Grocery Supplier of the Year” f rom Shamrock Foods. ...The applicable Top Level Domain (“TLD”) in a domain name (here, “.com”) is viewed as a standard
registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the f irst element confusing similarity test. See
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1.
The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
...
2025-07-25 - Case Details
The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name.
The Panel f inds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name.
Although the addition of other terms here, “sale” 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
disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...To the contrary, the Respondent purports to be “Huda Beauty Of f icial Store” in the
header of the website.
The Respondent is thus making a misleading and possible fraudulent use of the Complainant’s trademarks
and images of products, with a view to diverting traf f ic to its own prof it.
...
2026-04-13 - Case Details
Further, the Complainant contends that OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE is well known and the website to
which the disputed domain name resolved mirrored the Complainant’s of f icial site suggesting af f iliation
between the parties.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. ...There are no exceptional circumstances within paragraph 5(f ) of the Rules to prevent the Panel f rom
determining the dispute based upon the Complaint, notwithstanding the failure of the Respondent to f ile a
page 3
Response. ...
2024-03-13 - Case Details
According to the Complainant, such additions or alterations are
insuf f icient to prevent a f inding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the
Complainant’s trademark. ...WIPO Overview 3.0., section
1.11.1.
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.
...
2026-02-02 - Case Details
The Respondent sent several email communications
to the Center, on September 28, 2023, October 9, 2023, and November 12, 2023. The Response was f iled
with the Center on October 17, 2023, and the Respondent conf irmed on October 28, 2023 that it was the
f inal Response.
...Therefore, 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 list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate
rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.
...
2023-12-06 - Case Details