Factual Background
The Complainant is a French multinational f inancial services f irm specializing in asset and wealth
management, corporate and investment banking, insurance, and payments. ...Panels
have consistently held that where the complainant’s trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain
name, the addition of other third-party marks (i.e., ), is insuf f icient in itself to avoid a
f inding of confusing similarity to the complainant’s mark under the f irst element. ...
2025-04-14 - Case Details
Furthermore, the Complainant argues that the additional term “of f icial” does not prevent a f inding of
confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s COLDWATER CREEK mark.
...The Respondent has not presented any evidence or explanation to justify its choice of the terms “coldwater
creek” and “official” in the disputed domain name. Considering that addition of the term “of f icial” can be
interpreted as “of f icial site of COLDWATER CREEK” the Panel f inds it unlikely that the Respondent’s
selection of the term “of f icial” is coincidental.
...
2025-04-14 - Case Details
The Panel also f inds that the Domain Name is identical to that mark.
Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
...Even so, the Panel is unwilling to conclude f rom this fact that
Respondent was aware of Complainant’s FAIRWELL mark when she acquired the Domain Name
(apparently f rom the third party).
...
2025-06-06 - Case Details
The Complainant also asserts that each and every of the thousands of watch listing webpages on the
Respondent’s website, displayed a fabricated watch sales f igure (e.g. “3 sold in last 25 hours”), which
materially changed when visitors immediately reload the page (of ten to display a sales f igure that was
incongruous with the previously displayed sales figure), this being a f raudulent marketing tactic to make it
appear to visitors that the website was selling multiple watches every day and was displaying legitimate
sales f igures, when it was not.
...Although the addition of the term “watches” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the
Panel f inds the addition of such term, along with a hyphen, does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity
between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2023-12-22 - Case Details
Complainant owns several trademark registrations for SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC, including:
- the International trademark registration No. 715395, SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC (f igurative), registered on
March 15, 1999, for goods and services in international classes 6, 9, 11, 36, 37, 39 and 42;
- the International trademark registration No. 715396, SCHNEIDER S ELECTRIC (f igurative), registered on
March 15, 1999, for goods and services in international classes 6, 9, 11, 36, 37, 39 and 42; and
- the European Union trademark registration No. 001103803, SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC (f igurative), f iled on
March 12, 1999 and registered on September 9, 2005, for goods and services in international classes 6, 9,
11, 36, 37, 39 and 42.
...D2002-0122). 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 Respondent may demonstrate rights or
legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.
...
2024-03-14 - Case Details
Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The disputed domain name resolves to a website that:
1. is purportedly offering for sale counterfeit goods at the website to which the disputed domain name
resolves, which goods are being falsely identif ied and labeled as BLACK DIAMOND goods;
2. the Respondent is also falsely holding itself out as the Complainant and/or af f iliated with and/or an
authorized distributor of the Complainant.
3. features copyright-protected images copied f rom the Complainant’s of f icial website.
...Although the addition of other terms (here, “outdoor” and “store”) 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.
...
2024-01-24 - Case Details
The Respondent’s Website also of fered some products f rom the third
parties for sale.
page 3
The Disputed Domain Name was registered on October 30, 2024. ...WIPO
Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4;
(e) there is no reasonable connection or association between the Respondent and the Disputed Domain
Name based on the case record; and
(f ) the risk of confusion arises f rom the composition of the Disputed Domain Name.
The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.
7. ...
2025-07-22 - Case Details
The disputed domain name, , incorporates the Complainant’s ONLYFANS
trademark in its entirety, with the addition of an extra letter “f ” between “only” and “fans.“ The Panel f inds
that the addition of this single letter constitutes a clear case of typosquatting, which does not prevent a
f inding of confusing similarity under the Policy. ...WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9 (misspellings).
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.
...
2025-11-10 - Case Details
Although the addition of other terms, here “4u”, 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. ...As the disputed domain name resolves to a website which of fers the Complainant’s smoke-f ree nicotine
products for sale and for which the Complainant’s ZYN trademark and product images are used, the Panel
f irst needs to decide if the Respondent (could have) made a bona f ide of fering of goods via the disputed
domain name and if the Oki Data criteria, which panels commonly apply in matters of resale, were met.
...
2025-12-23 - Case Details
Having said this, this website is in no way affiliated to the of f icial brand or website of
Wagamama. Any content used on this website is simply aggregated f rom the public domain information
available on the internet. ...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.
...
2025-12-19 - Case Details
Factual Background
Complainant Davis Polk & Wardwell (“Davis Polk”) is a law f irm that traces its beginnings to Francis N. Bangs,
who opened his own one-man law f irm in New York City in 1849. ...With ten offices strategically located in key business centers and political capitals, Complainant is a premier law
f irm that leading companies and f inancial institutions around the world turn to for counsel on their most
significant business and legal matters. ...
2025-05-12 - Case Details
Before f iling the Complaint, the disputed domain names hosted a
webpage inf ringing the Complainant’s rights.
...According to section 3.3 of the WIPO
Overview 3.0 f rom the inception of the UDRP, panelists 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. ...
2023-11-08 - Case Details
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 the Respondent may demonstrate
rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.
...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. Having reviewed the record, the Panel
f inds the current non-use of the disputed domain name does not prevent a f inding of bad faith in the
circumstances of this proceeding. ...
2023-11-01 - Case Details
The disputed domain name was registered on June 23, 2023. Before the Complaint was f iled, the website
linked to the disputed domain name showed, among others, a logo followed by “Chevron”, 0 F
1 “CHEVRON OIL:
THE FUTURE OF OIL AND GAS”, “ABOUT US Chevron Oil and Gas Export Company is a leading global
energy company that produces and exports oil and gold. ...It is clear to this Panel that the CHEVRON mark is recognizable in the
disputed domain name and that the addition of such characters in the disputed domain name does not avoid
a f inding of confusing similarity with said mark (see sections 1.7 and 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).
...
2023-12-06 - Case Details
The disputed domain name was registered on April 27, 2025. At the time of f iling of the Complaint, the
disputed domain name redirected to Complainant’s main corporate website. ...Complainant notes
that the disputed domain name omits the ampersand in the CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD Mark, which
Complainant asserts is insuf f icient to distinguish the disputed domain name f rom the CUSHMAN &
WAKEFIELD Marks, and adds the generic Top-Level Domain “.works”, which should be disregarded in the
analysis under the f irst element of the Policy.
...
2025-09-25 - Case Details
Although the addition of other terms (here, “agi”) 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 3.0, 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.
...
2024-03-13 - Case Details
The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trade mark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.
The Panel f inds the mark is recognisable within the disputed domain name, as they are identical apart f rom
the substitution of “a” for “e”. Furthermore, a domain name that consists of a common, obvious, or
intentional misspelling of a trade mark 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
recognisable aspects of the relevant mark. ...
2024-05-02 - Case Details
Factual Background
The Complainant is a company based in the Netherlands (Kingdom of the) and was founded as International
Market makers Combination in 1989. It is internationally active in the f ield of providing f inancial services,
particularly in offering trading solutions on the basis of data and algorithms. ...Although the addition of other terms, here “app” 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. ...
2024-02-07 - 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. ...Accordingly, the disputed domain
name is identical to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. 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.
...
2025-12-29 - Case Details
The mere addition of a hyphen in the disputed domain name does not disturb this f inding.
The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.1/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.1/
page 3
B. .../George R. F. Souter/
George R. F. Souter
Sole Panelist
Date: February 25, 2026
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.1/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.1/
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
1. ...
2026-03-02 - Case Details