The Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations for UNIPOLSAI, including the following, as
per trademark certif icates submitted as Annex 4 to the Complaint:
- Italian trademark registration No. 362022000146688 for UNIPOLSAI (word mark), f iled on October 18,
2022, and registered on February 23, 2023, renewal of the trademark originally filed on December 19, 2012
and registered with No. 0001552597 on July 31, 2013, in classes 9, 16, 35 and 36;
- International trademark registration No. 1158882 for UNIPOLSAI (word mark), registered on January 25,
2013, in classes 9, 16, 35 and 36;
- Italian trademark registration No. 302021000099950 for UNIPOLSAI ASSICURAZIONI (f igurative mark),
f iled on May 27, 2021, and registered on January 3, 2022, in classes 9, 16, 35, 36 and 41;
- European Union Trade Mark registration No. 018479175 for UNIPOLSAI ASSICURAZIONI (f igurative
mark), f iled on May 26, 2021, and registered on September 30, 2021, in classes 9, 16, 35, 36 and 41.
...WIPO Overview 3.0,
section 1.8.
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.
...
2024-03-06 - 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. ...Moreover, the Respondent’s knowledge of the Complainant and its trademarks can be readily inferred f rom
the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name for redirecting users to the of f icial Complainant’s
website. ...
2024-02-28 - Case Details
The Panel also notes that the Complainant has provided a
Complaint translated into Russian, and the Respondent had an opportunity to f ile a response in either
English or Russian, but none was f iled.
Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the
language of the proceedings shall be English.
6.2. ...Panels have consistently held that
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. See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.
...
2025-08-13 - 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
Vidare är Sökanden innehavare av följande varumärken:
- EU-varumärkesregistrering nr. 005041629 för O’LEARYS (ord), registrerat den 28 februari 2007;
- EU-varumärkesregistrering nr. 008976086 för O’LEARYS (f igur), registrerat den 16 februari 2012;
- EU-varumärkesregistrering nr. 010231141 för O’LEARYS (f igur), registrerat den 19 februari 2012;
- EU-varumärkesregistrering nr. 017495722 för O’LEARYS (f igur), registrerat den 9 mars 2018; samt
- EU-varumärkesregistrering nr. 017477993 för O’LEARYS (f igur), registrerat den 26 februari 2018.
...Sökanden hade f ram till september 2022 f ranchiseavtal med fyra företag som drevs och ägdes av
Innehavarens bror. ...
2023-12-20 - Case Details
The disputed domain name registered April 1, 2025, does not point to an active web site, but has been used
for a f raudulent email scheme using the Complainant’s mark in its logo form.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. ...The disputed domain name has not been pointed to an active web site, but has been used for a f raudulent
email scheme impersonating the Complainant using the Complainant’s mark in its logo form. ...
2026-04-24 - 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
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 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
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
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
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
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
Although the addition of other terms, here “get”, 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. 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.
...
2026-04-10 - 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
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