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.
...Furthermore, the Respondent has not provided any evidence of ongoing bona f ide use of
these Disputed Domain Names, nor any demonstrable preparations to use them in connection with a bona
f ide offering of goods or services. ...
2025-12-04 - Case Details
The Respondent shows that it holds a
current goods and services tax registration issued by the Government of India, with a date of validity f rom
March 17, 2021. The Respondent also shows that it holds an importer-exporter code issued by the
Government of India dating f rom March 31, 2021.
...The evidence in the case file as presented does not indicate that the Respondent’s aim in registering the
disputed domain name was to prof it f rom or exploit the Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel f inds the third element of the Policy has not been established.
...
2025-09-16 - Case Details
Although the addition of the letter “s”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel
f inds the addition of such letter 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’s use of the Disputed Domain Name to facilitate a tool for unauthorized
downloading of content f rom the Complainant’s website amounts to bad faith under the Policy. ...
2024-07-01 - Case Details
The Panel f inds the mark is recognizable within the Disputed Domain Name. Accordingly, the Panel f inds
that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity such as passing of f , or other types of
f raud, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.
...
2025-05-22 - Case Details
Where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain names,
as is the case here, the addition of other terms, whether descriptive or geographical, does not prevent a
f inding of confusing similarity under the f irst element of the Policy (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8).
...Such use is indicative of
impersonation or passing of f and is not a bona f ide of fering of goods or services, nor a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names.
...
2026-02-18 - Case Details
Pablo Iglesias Junco, WIPO Case No. D2008-1040 (“the Panel f inds that the trademark CARREFOUR is
well-known”)).
This Panel f inds that there is no reason for the Respondent to have registered the Disputed Domain Names
other than to trade of f the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant’s well-known trademark.
...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. ...
2024-01-17 - Case Details
Its af f iliate
Publix Asset Management Company, the other Complainant in this proceeding (“the second Complainant”),
owns and manages PUBLIX trademarks that are licensed to the f irst Complainant for use in its business.
...The f irst Complainant has also registered, on January 31, 1995, and uses the domain name to
access the official PUBLIX website where the f irst Complainant promotes its grocery store services and food
products sold in connection with the PUBLIX trademark.
...
2025-08-15 - Case Details
The Panel further f inds that the
Respondent’s earlier use of the website to promote and offer f ree download of an unauthorized, modif ied
APK version of TEMU application indicates a clear awareness of the Complainants and TEMU trademarks
and creates a risk of implied af f iliation or association with the Complainants.
...This presents an implied
ongoing threat to the Complainant and further supports a f inding of bad faith.
Accordingly, the Panel f inds that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name
pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
...
2025-10-03 - Case Details
The Complainant’s prima facie case shows evidence of how the Respondent was using the disputed domain
name and the Panel f inds that such use was not bona f ide. The evidence establishes that the disputed
domain name was linked to a website selling LEGO toys. ...Both the Respondent’s previous use of the disputed domain name amounts to bad faith use and the current
non-use of it does not prevent a f inding of bad faith.
The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.
7. ...
2024-07-03 - Case Details
The Panel has not received any requests f rom the Complainant or the Respondents regarding further
submissions, waivers or extensions of deadlines, and the Panel has not found it necessary to request any
further information f rom the Parties.
...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. ...
2024-02-19 - Case Details
The f irst two letters in the three-letter Domain Name are identical to the first two letters in the Complainant’s
ADM trademark. ...Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has proven the f irst element: the Domain Name is
confusingly similar to a trademark in which it has rights.
...
2025-04-17 - Case Details
In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5,
the due date for Response was April 30, 2024. The Response was f iled with the Center on April 27, 2024.
The Complainant f iled a Supplemental Filling on April 29, 2024.
...Panels have repeatedly af f irmed that the party submitting or requesting to submit an unsolicited
supplemental f iling should clearly show its relevance to the case and why it was unable to provide the
information contained therein in its complaint or response (e.g., owing to some “exceptional” circumstance).
...
2024-06-12 - Case Details
The Parties have a history with each other and have been engaged in litigation and contested trademark
proceedings before USPTO. Summarizing f rom the Complaint and Response in this proceeding, court
f ilings, and USPTO documents, the relevant facts are as follows:
page 4
The Complainant sent an email to the Respondent on October 28, 2024, notifying it of the Complainant’s
marks and requesting that it stops using the disputed domain names to redirect Internet traf f ic to the
Respondent’s website. ...The mere lack of success of the Complaint is not, on its own,
suf f icient to constitute RDNH. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.16.
Given that the Panel finds merit in the Complaint as f iled, the Panel does not f ind that the Complaint has
been brought in bad faith and constitutes an attempt at RDNH.
7. ...
2026-04-08 - Case Details
The Panel has not received any requests f rom the Complainant or the Respondent regarding further
submissions, waivers or extensions of deadlines, and the Panel has not found it necessary to request any
further information f rom the Parties.
...Moreover, the Panel f inds that the composition of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied
af f iliation as it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant. ...
2023-10-16 - Case Details
On March 9, 2026, the Center notified the parties of the Commencement of Panel Appointment
Process.
page 2
The Center appointed Andrew F. Christie as the sole panelist in this matter on March 12, 2026. The Panel
f inds that it was properly constituted. ...The Complainant is a publicly traded company with a reported total
annual revenue of JPY 562.4 billion (equivalent to roughly USD 3.62 billion) for the 2025 f iscal year. It
employs more than 17,000 people and operates in 62 countries around the world together with its multiple
subsidiaries and af f iliates.
...
2026-04-10 - Case Details
The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <f lappygame.org> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was f iled with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 17,
2025. ...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.
...
2025-04-08 - Case Details
In November 2023, an email
using the Domain Name was sent f rom the email address ***@taylorwimpeyukltd.com to one of the
Complainant’s suppliers of computer equipment, purporting to be f rom a Support Manager at one of the
Complainant group companies - Taylor Wimpey UK Limited.
5. ...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
The Domain Name is being used exclusively for a criminal
enterprise (described above) consisting of f raudulent job of fers, identify thef t and phishing for sensitive
information.
The Domain Name was registered on October 23, 2025, which correlates with the date f raudulent emails
began, evidencing that it was registered with the primary purpose of committing f raud and intentionally
attracting users for commercial gain. ...Complainant notes that the Domain Name was registered on October 23, 2025, which
correlates with the date f raudulent emails began.
Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity here, claimed as f raud, phishing/identity
thef t, passing off, constitutes bad faith. ...
2026-04-09 - Case Details
Although the addition of other terms, here “us”, 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. ...Such use demonstrates the Respondent’s clear knowledge of , and intent to
target, the Complainant.
Af ter one of the defrauded customers f iled a formal complaint, the hosting provider has suspended the
disputed domain name.
Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here impersonating the Complainant and
perpetrating f inancial f raud constitutes bad faith. ...
2024-01-02 - 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. ...WIPO Overview,
section 1.11.
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.
...
2025-04-16 - Case Details