A domain name, which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional
misspelling of a trademark, is considered by UDRP panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for
purposes of the f irst element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9.
Based on the available record, the Panel f inds the f irst 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.
...
2023-12-20 - Case Details
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.
...The Panel f inds
that, under these circumstances, the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a
f inding of bad faith under the Policy.
...
2024-03-11 - Case Details
Although the addition of “llc” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel f inds the
addition does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark
for the purposes of the Policy. ...Other panels have found that the non-use of a domain name, including a webpage displaying a “launching
soon” message, does not prevent a f inding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO
Overview 3.0, section 3.3. In the present case, the Panel f inds that the passive holding of the disputed
domain name does not prevent such a f inding here. ...
2025-08-27 - 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.
...Again, the Respondent failed to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case and to show
the bone f ide nature of its of fering goods on its website.
The Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established.
...
2024-07-10 - Case Details
The Parties
The Complainant is Games Global Operations Limited, United Kingdom, represented by McDonnell Boehnen
Hulbert & Berghof f LLP, United States of America (“United States”).
The Respondent is Cheap domain, treasureland, United States.
2. ...In this case, the Complainant has submitted evidence that the Respondent is using the disputed domain
name in a f raudulent scheme to impersonate the Complainant through emails to try to defraud the
Complainant’s vendors by inducing them to make payments on f raudulent invoices. ...
2025-12-22 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant asserts to be the largest air carrier in the word, serving over 350 destinations in
over f ifty countries, with nearly 7,000 daily f lights; having, during its nearly 100-year history, developed
global name-recognition and goodwill which became a household name.
...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.
...
2025-12-22 - Case Details
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
Response. ...The applicable generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) in a domain name is viewed as a standard registration
requirement and as such is disregarded under the f irst element test.
The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
B. ...
2025-09-03 - Case Details
Such activity is said to be incompatible with a
bona f ide offering of goods and to demonstrate registration and use of the Domain Name in bad faith.
...WIPO
Overview 3.0, section 1.8.
6.5 The Panel, therefore, f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests and Registered and Used in Bad Faith
6.6 It is usual for panels under the Policy to consider the issues of rights or legitimate interests and
registration and use in bad faith in turn. ...
2025-09-03 - Case Details
Although the addition of a hyphen and term “login”, which is descriptive and may suggest an of f icial sign-in
webpage, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel f inds the addition of such
term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for
the purposes of the Policy. ...Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including an error webpage) would not prevent a
f inding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed
the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant’s CARREFOUR
trademark, and the composition of the disputed domain name, and f inds 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.
...
2025-08-29 - Case Details
- The Respondent does not possess rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. There
is no af f iliation or grant of rights between the Complainant and the Respondent.
- The Respondent is using the disputed domain name to host a website that traf f ics in the same
footwear that the Complainant is marketing online, which use fails to conform to a “bona f ide of fering of
goods or services” under the Policy.
- Respondent’s f raudulent sales do not constitute a “legitimate noncommercial or fair use” of the
disputed domain name...
2025-04-17 - 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 1.8.
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.
...
2026-02-05 - Case Details
The application asserts a f irst use date of December 31, 2020.
The disputed domain name was registered on August 22, 2024. ...The string “rarebreedtrigger” is confusingly similar to the RARE BREED FIREARMS trademark, as the
dominant feature of the RARE BREED FIREARMS trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain
name. Furthermore, it is only a letter dif ferent f rom the Complainant’s RARE BREED TRIGGERS
unregistered mark.
The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
...
2025-09-26 - Case Details
This suggests an attempt to imply
af f iliation with the Complainant, and exploit the goodwill and distinctive value of the Complainant.
...Although the addition of other terms (here, “box”) 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. ...
2026-02-13 - Case Details
Factual Background
The Complainant is a prominent United States of America (“USA”) law f irm based in California with of f ices
elsewhere in the USA and abroad. The Complainant engages in numerous areas of legal practice and has
been in business since 1972. ...The Panel f inds that this slight change still leaves
the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s service mark.
...
2024-11-06 - Case Details
WIPO Overview 3.0., section 1.11.
Although the addition of other terms here, “f ragrance” and “f ragrances” respectively, may bear on
assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a
f inding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the mark for the purposes of the
Policy. ...In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names that
incorporate the Complainant’s mark and words “f ragrance” or “f ragrances” that describe the Complainant’s
products to direct to websites that display Pay-Per-Click links relating to competing products. ...
2024-05-20 - Case Details
The fact that the Domain Name also contains another term “career”
added to the Trademark, does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity (see the WIPO Overview of WIPO
Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) section 1.8: “[w]here the
relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether
descriptive, geographic, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a f inding of confusing
similarity under the f irst element”).
...The Panel f inds that this further corroborates that the Domain Name has been
registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith.
...
2023-11-24 - Case Details
The Complainant af f irms that the platform is not af f iliated with DAZN services, and is
page 3
completely unrelated to DAZN. ...This third-party website commercially benef its
f rom Internet traf f ic being driven to its website, given that its services are of fered exclusively online.
...
2023-11-20 - Case Details
EU017912377, f iled on June 5, 2018, registered on
January 9, 2019, for products and services in classes 9, 35, 38, 41, and 42;
- the United States Trademark, ONLYFANS No. 5,769,267, registered on June 4, 2019, for products and
services in class 35, f irst use in commerce on July 4, 2019;
- the United States Trademark, ONLYFANS.COM No. 5,769,268, registered on June 4, 2019, for products
and services in class 35, f irst use in commerce on July 4, 2019.
...Although the addition of other terms here, the generic numeral “24” 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. ...
2024-01-08 - Case Details
The Complainant’s products are
sold in more than 130 countries, including China.
The f irst application for LEGO trademark was f iled in Denmark in 1953. Currently, the Complainant owns
numerous trademarks worldwide for LEGO, including the following:
1) Denmark registration No. ...Although the addition of other terms, here “toyc”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements,
the Panel f inds the addition of such a term does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity between the
disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2025-12-23 - Case Details
It refers to its own application for a United States trademark CONTINIA, f iled in August 2024,
which it states it did not pursue given the costs of contesting the opposition which was f iled by the
Complainant.
...The Panel f inds in the circumstances that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of
the disputed domain name.
...
2025-07-25 - Case Details