The disputed domain name was registered on June 4, 2025. Before the f iling of the
Complaint, it resolved to an e-commerce website on which the Complainant’s products were offered for sale
using the Complainant’s trademark, and purporting to be an of f icial website of the Complainant or of an
authorised reseller.
5. ...Taking into account that the trademark THE ORDINARY is
recognisable, the other element of the disputed domain name, i.e. the abbreviation “us”, which stands for
United States, does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity.
The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
...
2025-12-09 - Case Details
the “Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was f iled in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on
November 4, 2025. ...When coupled with the Respondent’s unexplained choice of the disputed domain name
incorporating the Trade Mark, this is a significant factor supporting a f inding of bad faith registration (See
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1). The Panel therefore f inds that registration of the disputed domain
names is in bad faith.
...
2026-01-08 - Case Details
Accordingly, the disputed domain
name is confusingly similar 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.
...Taking into account these
factors, the Panel finds that passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a f inding of bad
faith under the circumstances of this case. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3.
Therefore, the Panel f inds that the disputed domain name was registered and being used in bad faith.
...
2025-12-19 - 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/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 4
The Panel also ignored the gTLD extension “.com” since it is viewed as a standard registration requirement
and suggested as disregarded under the f irst element 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.
...The Panel acknowledges the risk of a phishing scheme due to e-mail addresses configured on the disputed
domain name, which further supports a f inding of bad faith. The Panel f inds that the Complainant has
established the third element of the Policy.
7. ...
2025-04-14 - Case Details
The Panel f inds this applies to the present case. WIPO Overview
3.0, section 2.9.
The Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established.
...Thus, the current passive holding of the disputed domain
name does not prevent a f inding of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3.
The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.
7. ...
2024-05-02 - Case Details
Factual Background
The Complainant is a construction company f rom Monaco that was established in 2014.
The Complainant is responsible for the realisation of “Mareterra”, a new district currently under construction
in Monaco. ...D2011-0483, where the
complainant had no registered trademark, the domain name referred to an existing geographical location,
and the complainant’s common law trademark was not recognizable in the domain 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.
...
2024-03-27 - Case Details
The Panel
f inds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and
Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the
Rules, paragraph 7.
...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
The Respondent’s failure to file a Response may result in the Panel drawing appropriate inferences f rom
such default. The Panel may also accept all reasonable and supported allegations and inferences f lowing
f rom the Complainant as true (see Entertainment Shopping AG v. ...
2024-03-06 - Case Details
WIPO
Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
The Panel, therefore, 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.
...Also, panels have long held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (here:
impersonating/passing of f Complainant) constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4.
The Panel, therefore, f inds that Complainant has established the third element of the Policy, too.
...
2024-02-06 - Case Details
Although the addition of a hyphen and of the letters “ca” and “cf ”, which could be viewed as referring to the
initials of the Complainant, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel f inds the
addition of such elements does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain
name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g.,the sale of
counterfeit goods or impersonation/passing of f , or other types of f raud such as the identity thef t of an
employee of the Complainant) constitutes bad faith. ...
2024-01-24 - Case Details
Although the addition of the term “app”, here, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the
Panel finds 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. 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.
...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
In its informal communications the Respondent claims he acquired the disputed domain name f rom the
Registrar and invested in its promotion on Internet, and therefore he will suf fer f inancial loses should a
decision be rendered against him. ...
2024-06-26 - Case Details
The mere addition of the geographic term “pakistan” to the Complainant’s trademark
LUNDBECK does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity with the Complainant’s marks.
Furthermore, the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain “(gTLD”) “.com” is not suf f icient to prevent a
f inding of confusing similarity either. ...Here the
Panel f inds that the Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a f inding
of bad faith (see section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).
...
2024-07-08 - Case Details
WIPO Overview 3.0,
section 1.8.
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.
...UDRP panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (i.e., impersonation/passing of f )
constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4.
Based on the available record, the Panel f inds the third element of the Policy has been established.
...
2024-10-23 - Case Details
The Panel does not find the addition of the word
“lady” avoids a f inding of confusing similarity, and accordingly f inds the disputed domain name to be
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of the Policy. ...WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.
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.
...
2023-12-15 - Case Details
The Complainant owns a United States registration, No. 514,294, for its AMERICAN AIRLINES trademark,
issued on August 23, 1949, with a f irst use in Class 39 in 1949 for “air transport of passengers and f reight”;
a United States registration, No. 5,279,167, for its AMERICAN AIRLINES trademark, issued on Sep 5, 2017,
with a f irst use in Class 9 in 2010, for “computer application software” for mobile and other devices, “namely,
for ticketing passengers, checking reservations, and checking flight status” and for “tracking and redeeming
loyalty program awards” and a f irst use in Class 38 in 2009, for “providing Internet access”; and other
registrations for its AMERICAN AIRLINES mark and other similar marks and figurative marks for these and
other goods and services, including international registrations.
...Policy, paragraph 4(a).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
On the f irst element, the Panel f inds that the Domain Name is confusingly
similar to the Complainant’s registered AMERICAN AIRLINES trademark. ...
2024-01-10 - Case Details
WIPO
Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
While the addition of other terms, here “f irearms” and “usa” respectively “store” may bear on the 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. WIPO
Overview 3.0, section 1.8.
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.
...
2024-01-02 - Case Details
The practice of inverting the terms “tea” and “david” and replacing the letter “s” with the word “by” does
not prevent the Panel from finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademark, in line with section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.
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.
...Currently, the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website. The Panel f inds that the non-use of
disputed domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding in the
circumstances of this case. ...
2025-09-11 - Case Details
The Complainant further states that the disputed domain name has been used for phishing
activities, whereby emails were sent to a client of the Complainant for f raudulent “outstanding
invoices” and were made to appear to come f rom the Complainant, for f inancial gain.
...WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1.
Having reviewed the available record, the Panel f inds the Complainant has established a prima
facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...
2026-04-29 - Case Details
The Complainant
argues that the disputed domain name has been intentionally used to attract Internet traf f ic for commercial
gain, creating a likelihood of confusion with the ALDI trademark with respect to the source, sponsorship,
af f iliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. ...WIPO Overview 3.0,
section 1.8.
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. ...
2025-09-04 - Case Details
Since Internet users will be duped into believing the Respondent’s site and the products on it
are associated with the Complainant this is not a legitimate bona f ide of fering of goods or services or
legitimate use. It is registration and use in f raudulent bad faith.
...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.
...
2025-04-17 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered
trademarks, and was registered and is being used in bad faith to divert Internet traf f ic f rom Complainnant’s
legitimate site to the Respondent’s website. The Respondent has no connection to the Complainant, and
there is no legitimate reason for the Respondent to have registered the disputed domain name containing the
Complainant’s trademark. ...WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7 and 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.
...
2025-12-04 - Case Details