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.
...
2025-12-05 - Case Details
Factual Background
The Complainant is a French company founded in 1976 specializing in the f ield of f ruit desserts.
The Complainant’s official webpage is available at the domain name , registered on
December 14, 2010, as well as , registered on July 17, 2012. ...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.
...
2025-12-04 - Case Details
The Complainant conf irms that the Respondent has no authorization, licence, or permission to use the
CENTERPOINT ENERGY trademarks and that there is no af f iliation or relationship between them.
The Respondent has misused the disputed domain name to direct it to a webpage f illed with links to other
websites. ...These actions could easily mislead recipients into believing the emails originated f rom the
Complainant.
The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.
...
2024-10-23 - Case Details
Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes that Respondent targeted Complainant in each of
the disputed domain names, and f inds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the
disputed domain names does not prevent a f inding of bad faith under the Policy.
The Panel f inds that Complainant has established the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. 1
7. ...
2024-11-04 - Case Details
Although the addition of other terms here, “loja” 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. ...The Panel f inds that the Respondent
registered the disputed domain name with the purpose of intentionally attempting to create a likelihood of
confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the disputed domain name’s source, sponsorship,
af f iliation or endorsement. ...
2024-11-06 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends as follows:
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ARKEMA trademark in which the Complainant has
rights, because it incorporates this trademark in its entirety, and the addition of the geographic term “f r”,
which stands for “France”, is not suf f icient to prevent a f inding of confusing similarity.
...This creates a risk that unsuspecting recipients would remit payment to the wrong account or ship
goods to an address unaf f iliated with the Complainant af ter receiving the f raudulent emails sent by the
Respondent.
...
2024-01-03 - Case Details
Here, Respondent registered the confusingly similar Domain Name to
divert Internet traf f ic f rom Complainant’s site to a site of fering adult entertainment content and related
subscription services in direct competition with Complainant’s site.
...Accordingly, the Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?...
2024-04-17 - Case Details
Although the addition of the Top-Level-Domain (“TLD”) “.company” may bear on assessment of the second
and third elements, the Panel f inds the addition of such word does not prevent a f inding of confusing
similarity between the Domain Name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...Having reviewed the available
record, the Panel f inds the non-use of the Domain Name does not prevent a f inding of bad faith in the
circumstances of this proceeding. ...
2024-07-03 - Case Details
Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s trademark.
For the reason mentioned above, the Panel f inds that the f irst element has been established.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
On the basis of the record as set out above, the Panel f inds that the Complainant has made the required
allegations to support a prima facie case showing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in
the disputed domain name. ...C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel f inds that there is suf f icient evidence to f ind bad faith in this case.
The Panel f inds that it is unlikely the Respondent did not know about the Complainant prior to registering the
disputed domain name. ...
2023-11-24 - Case Details
The use of a privacy service to conceal the Respondent’s identity further supports a f inding of bad faith.
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. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. The
Panel f inds that the doctrine of passive holding applies in this case. Even though the disputed domain
names currently resolve to error pages, 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. ...
2025-12-04 - Case Details
Its equipment and
services are relied upon by major film studios and production companies in connection with many of the
most successful feature f ilms and television series worldwide.
The Complainants operate internationally through af f iliates in several countries, supported by a global
network of distributors. ...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.
...
2025-08-27 - Case Details
The Respondent also used the Disputed Domain Name to post f raudulent job listings in online newspaper
advertisements using an email address that purported to come f rom the Complainant’s staf f . ...Thus, the Panel concludes that the
Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s USA TODAY Mark.
Accordingly, the Panel f inds that the f irst element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the
Complainant.
...
2023-12-06 - Case Details
Procedural Aspects – Failure to Respond
As aforementioned, no Response was received f rom the Respondent.
Under the Rules, paragraphs 5(f) and 14(a), the effect of a default by the Respondent is that, in the absence
of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall proceed to a decision on the basis of the Complaint.
...WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1.
Based on the available record, the Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 4
B. ...
2026-02-09 - Case Details
Moreover, the
Complainant submits that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to engage in an email
phishing scheme, attempting to divert (and succeeding in doing so) payments f rom a customer of the
page 3
Complainant to an account which the Respondent presumably controls, by passing of f as an authorised
accounts receivable department of the Complainant.
...In addition, the Panel finds that the addition of the country-code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.co” to the
disputed 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.
The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
...
2025-03-31 - Case Details
Although the addition of other terms like “ -na” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements,
the Panel f inds the addition of this 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.
...
2025-05-23 - Case Details
At the time of the
Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a website designed to look like an exact replica of the
Complainant’s of f icial website at “www.santaverse.com”, reproducing the Complainant’s 3D animated
imagery of Scout Elf and Reindeer characters, specif ic headlines, and narrative text verbatim f rom the
Complainant’s website.
...WIPO Overview 3.1, sections 1.7 and
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.
...
2026-04-07 - Case Details
The Complainant’s trademark has no meaning, it is a unique family name. The Panel f inds it is far f rom
conceivable that the Respondent would have chosen the domain name by mere chance.
...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 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. ...
2024-02-05 - Case Details
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 4
Although the addition of other term here, “viia”, 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. ...Furthermore, it is well established that the applicable Top-Level Domain in a domain name is viewed as a
standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.
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.
...
2025-08-18 - Case Details
The inversion of the letters “l” and “i” does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity between the
disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark.
...The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant contends that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the
disputed domain name. ...
2025-08-14 - Case Details
One of the disputed domain
names has been linked to a website masquerading as an of f icial website of Complainant, and two others
have been f lagged for fraudulent communications, also masquerading as Complainant. ...Although the addition of other terms 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 names and Complainant’s mark for purposes of the Policy. ...
2025-12-11 - Case Details