Headquartered in France, Crédit
Agricole is an international banking group which is made up of a network of banks and f inancial service
companies providing a full spectrum of banking and f inancial services including retail banking, insurance,
specialized consumer credit services, corporate and investment banking. ...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.
...
2025-04-04 - Case Details
Factual Background
The Complainant is a French multinational f inancial services f irm specialized in asset and wealth
management, corporate and investment banking, insurance and payments. ...EUROTITRES, as an af filiate company beneficiates from NATIXIS reputation. Indeed, it is the f irst French
subcontractor for retail custody of f inancial instruments. In 2022, EUROTITRES had 418 employees.
...
2024-01-24 - Case Details
Since the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use its trademarks and
domain names, this use can only be f raudulent.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. ...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.
...
2023-12-06 - Case Details
The circumstance that the disputed
domain name is almost identical to the Complainant’s domain name , f rom which it only
dif fers for a hyphen between “nestle” and “jobs”, clearly shows that the Respondent was indeed well aware
of the Complainant, its trademarks and of f icial websites – including Nestlé’s of f icial job portal at
“www.nestlejobs.com” – and deliberately registered the disputed domain name with the intention to create an
association with the Complainant that does not exist. ...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. ...
2023-12-05 - Case Details
La Sociedad AMERICAN GAIA CORP le otorgó a la Sociedad STF GROUP S.A. la licencia para el uso las marcas STUDIO F y ELA. La Demandante STF GROUP S.A opera dos sitios web oficiales de las marcas STUDIO F y ELA, saber “www.studiof.com.co” y “www.ela.com.co”.
...En el caso del nombre de dominio en disputa si bien la marca es STUDIO F, y el nombre de dominio usa solo STUDIO sin la letra F, este Experto entiende que el contenido al que dirige el nombre de domino en disputa imitando a un sitio online de las Demandantes y usando la marca STUDIO F en forma destacada dentro del contenido confirman la conclusión del Experto de similitud confusa.
...
2022-02-09 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the f irst element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or
threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between
the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. ...Accordingly, the disputed domain
name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9.
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.
...
2025-08-07 - Case Details
Although the addition of other terms, here “bali”, 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 use of MX records associated with the disputed domain name
further raises the possibility of malicious use, such as phishing or email f raud, which could exploit the
goodwill associated with the Complainant’s mark. This reinforces the Panel’s f inding of the Respondent’s
bad faith.
...
2025-05-23 - Case Details
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8) In addition, the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.org” is
disregarded under the f irst element test. (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1).
Therefore, the Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
...WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.) Accordingly, the Panel f inds
that the Respondent does not use them in connection with a bona f ide of fering of goods or services or a
legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names under these circumstances. ...
2025-12-04 - Case Details
The Panel f inds that such use of the disputed domain name falls into paragraph
4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
The fact that the disputed domain name no longer resolves to an active website, 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. ...
2024-03-11 - Case Details
The Complainant’s customer service department received a number of messages f rom its customers
concerning orders that had not been received and that they were unable to trace.
...WIPO Overview 3.0,
section 2.13.1.
The Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel refers to its consideration under 6.B.
...
2024-02-05 - Case Details
Merit Turizm Yatirim
Ve Isletme Anonim Sirketi v. Fedlan Kilicaslan, G&F Company Group NV / Redsoft N.V., WIPO Case
No. D2017-1398.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the f irst element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Although the addition of other terms (here, “eu”) 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. ...
2024-11-06 - 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 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 non-use of the disputed domain name does not prevent a f inding of bad faith in the circumstances
of this proceeding including (i) the significant online visibility of the Complainant’s CARREFOUR trade mark,
(ii) the failure of the Respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated
good-faith use and (iii) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the disputed domain name may be
put. ...
2023-12-21 - 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.
...Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness
of the Complainant’s 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.
...
2023-12-14 - Case Details
While the addition of other terms, here “casino”, 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
Domain Name and the WILDZ 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.
...
2024-01-05 - Case Details
The IQOS System was f irst launched by PMI in Nagoya, Japan in 2014
and has obtained, according to the Complainant extraordinary 20% share of the market in Japan. ...The addition of other terms (“shop” and “smoke”) does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity under the
f irst element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.
The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.
...
2026-02-12 - Case Details
Trademark Registration Date Classes
USPTO – United
States Patent and
Trademark Of f ice
5,472,989
U.S. PATRIOT
May 22, 2018 35
USPTO – United
States Patent and
Trademark Of f ice
5,472,999 May 22, 2018 35
The Complainant also owns the domain name , registered on August 19, 2009.
...Taking together with the customer reviews provided by the Complainant about the website, the Panel finds it
more likely than not that the website is a pretense for trading of f of the Complainant’s reputation. Panels
have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here, claimed as passing of f , constitutes bad
faith. ...
2026-04-09 - Case Details
SAERANG COSMETICS in Class 3, PETER F. SAERANG ACCESSORIES & JEWELRY in Class 14, PETER F. SAERANG HAIRDRESSING SCHOOL in Class 41, and PETER F. ...The Respondent is not known by the name Peter Frits Saerang or Peter F. Saerang. The Complainants have no relationship with the Respondent and have not permitted the Respondent to use the name and trademark PETER F. ...
2007-05-31 - Case Details
Both Complainants have a
common grievance against the Respondent, and the latter has engaged in common conduct that is likely to
af fect the Complainants in similar fashion. Both Complainants are besides af f iliated as being part of the
same group.
It therefore appears equitable and procedurally ef f icient to the Panel to permit the consolidation.
4. ...D2013-2143 regarding domain name
: “The Complainant has been using the CIC trademark for decades in the area of
banking and f inancial services. The Panel f inds that this mark, owned by the Complainant, is a
well-known one and the Complainant has rights in several CIC trademarks...
2023-10-09 - 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 Respondent may demonstrate rights or
legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...The initiation of Complainant’s trademark use as it spun of f f rom IBM and began
trading as a separate enterprise on the NYSE was a well-publicized event. Given the distinctive nature of
Complainant’s trademark and its well-publicized use, the Panel concludes that Respondent was almost
certainly aware of that trademark when it registered and used the disputed domain name. ...
2025-12-04 - Case Details
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1.
Accordingly, 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. ...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. ...
2024-03-06 - Case Details