The essence of both of these cases is that a dispute, if properly documented and supported by applicable law, could give rise in certain circumstances to a legitimate interest in the domain name as a lien to secure payment and as such would result in dismissal of the relative complaint.
...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides four, non-exclusive, circumstances that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
“(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location”.
...
2012-12-21 - Case Details
The Panel notes that the Respondent has not provided evidence of circumstances of the type specified in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or evidence of any other circumstances giving rise to a right to or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The Panel further notes that the Respondent has failed to submit a Response to the Complaint filed against it. ...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four circumstances which, without limitation, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith, namely:
(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent’s website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service of the respondent’s website or location.
...
2014-02-11 - Case Details
Respondent has suggested that its intention is to use the disputed domain name that
incorporates Complainant’s well-known trademark to develop analytic products that might be of interest to
Complainant for use in its business. Respondent would effectively be offering to provide a method of using
Complainant’s trademark to Complainant for a commercial purpose. ...The Panel observes that the disputed domain name suggests or implies that Complainant’s trademark would
be used in connection with some type of AI-related activity within the lines of business in which Complainant
operates. This would inherently create Internet user confusion regarding Complainant as the source,
sponsor, affiliate or endorser of a website identified by the disputed domain name. ...
2026-01-02 - Case Details
The
Panel finds that the Complainants have a specific common grievance against the Respondents, arising from
a common interest in the BRAUN Trademark, and that the Respondents’ conduct has adversely affected
both. Additionally, consolidation would be equitable and procedurally efficient.
...The practice of typosquatting, as evidenced by the registration of the disputed domain names
that are slight misspellings or variations of the Complainants’ BRAUN Trademark, illustrates a clear intention
to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion.
As an additional circumstance evidencing bad faith, the Panel further notes that both Respondents were
involved in several prior UDRP disputes concerning domain names confusingly similar to the complainant’s
trademarks, which were concluded with the transfer of the disputed domain names to the complainants
(concerning the first Respondent, see ecoATM, LLC v. ...
2026-04-23 - Case Details
page 4
- Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name because, inter alia,
“Respondent purchased the Disputed Domain solely because it believed the term ‘Star of the Sea’ was
a generic religious reference and that it believed no party could claim exclusive rights”; “based on the
significant and historic third-party usage, it is clear that many in the public understand ‘Star of the Sea’
as a reference to Stella Maris and a Catholic religious context”; “Respondent’s historical use of the
Disputed Domain to present links and information related to the religious connotation and
understanding of ‘Star of the Sea’ demonstrates a clear and recognizable good faith long predating
any notice of the Complaint”; “Respondent’s ownership of the Disputed Domain as an investment
because of its increasing inherent value also satisf ies the legitimate interest prong of the Policy”;
Respondent is the registrant of 94 “other valuable and memorable Catholic domain names,” including
, , and ”; and “Respondent does not
target trademarks” (emphasis in original)...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Whether a domain name is registered and used in bad faith for purposes of the Policy may be determined by
evaluating four (non-exhaustive) factors set forth in the Policy: (i) circumstances indicating that the registrant
has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise
transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service
mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the registrant’s
documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) the registrant has registered the
domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark f rom ref lecting the mark in a
corresponding domain name, provided that the registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii)
the registrant has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a
competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, the registrant has intentionally attempted to attract, for
commercial gain, Internet users to the registrant’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of
confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, af f iliation, or endorsement of the
registrant’s website or location or of a product or service on the registrant’s website or location. ...
2023-10-10 - Case Details
The respondent may establish a right or legitimate interest in the domain name by demonstrating in
accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy any of the following:
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2003/d2003-0696.html
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 7
(i) that it has used or made preparations to use the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain
name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to the dispute; or
(ii) that it is commonly known by the domain name, even if it has not acquired any trademark rights; or
(iii) that it is making a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the domain name without intent for
commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark.
...Under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, evidence of bad faith registration and use includes without limitation:
(i) circumstances indicating the domain name was registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of
selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the owner of a trademark or to a
competitor of the trademark owner, for valuable consideration in excess of the documented out-of-pocket
costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) circumstances indicating that the domain name was registered in order to prevent the owner of a
trademark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided it is a pattern of such conduct;
or
(iii) circumstances indicating that the domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting
the business of a competitor; or
(iv) circumstances indicating that the domain name has intentionally been used in an attempt to attract, for
commercial gain, Internet users to a website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion
with a trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website or location or of a
product or service on a website or location.
...
2023-08-08 - Case Details
According to the Complainant, the Respondent registered the disputed domain
name with knowledge of the Complainant and its WECHAT trademark with the intent to prevent the
Complainant from using it, to create confusion among Internet users, or to disrupt the Complainant’s
business. The Complainant notes that the Respondent claims on its website that “[w]e never provide goods
or commercial services here” (translated from Chinese), and adds that the lack of commercial use of the
disputed domain name does not indicate that the Respondent has not registered it in bad faith.
...As discussed in section 3.7 of the WIPO
Overview 3.0, in cases where the respondent appears to otherwise have a right or legitimate interest in a
disputed domain name, a clear and sufficiently prominent disclaimer would lend support to circumstances
suggesting its good faith. ...
2023-08-07 - Case Details
The respondent may establish a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name by demonstrating in
accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy any of the following:
(i) that it has used or made preparations to use the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain
name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to the dispute; or
(ii) that it is commonly known by the domain name, even if it has not acquired any trademark rights; or
(iii) that it is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name without intent for
commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark.
...Under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, evidence of bad faith registration and use includes without limitation:
(i) circumstances indicating the domain name was registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of
selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the owner of a trademark or
to a competitor of the trademark owner, for valuable consideration in excess of the documented out-of-
pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) circumstances indicating that the domain name was registered in order to prevent the owner of a
trademark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided it is a pattern of such
conduct; or
(iii) circumstances indicating that the domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting
the business of a competitor; or
(iv) circumstances indicating that the domain name has intentionally been used in an attempt to attract, for
commercial gain, Internet users to a website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of
confusion with a trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website or
location or of a product or service on a website or location.
...
2023-05-10 - Case Details
The Complainant avers that the Respondent lacks a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name
and, to the best of the Complainant’s knowledge, the Respondent does not have any trademark rights to the
term RELX. ...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy
(WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1) establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if
found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad
faith, namely:
(i) circumstances indicating that [the respondent] has registered or [the respondent] has acquired the domain
name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to
the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for
valuable consideration in excess of [the respondent’s] documented out of pocket costs directly related to the
domain name; or
(ii) [the respondent] has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or
service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [the respondent] has
engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) [the respondent] has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a
competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, [the respondent] has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial again,
Internet users to [the respondent’s] website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion
with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of [the respondent’s]
website or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] website or location.
...
2024-08-26 - Case Details
The unauthorized use of the Complainant’s name and mark on the website associated with the
disputed domain name is causing a likelihood of confusion. The Respondent intends to mislead the
consumer about the source of the products that he intends to promote and commercialize. ...page 5
The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding and expressed no interest in
participating in this proceeding besides sending a brief informal email in Chinese. This email was sent not
only after the due date for Response but also after the due date for the Respondent’s comments in reply to
Procedural Order No.1.
...
2024-03-19 - Case Details
The addition of generic terms or letters such as “es”, “s-es” and “wb” (and “pass” if we
consider the CARREFOUR trademark only) to a trademark in a domain name does nothing to diminish the
likelihood of confusion arising from that domain name. As regards the disputed domain name (including both CARREFOUR and CARREFOUR PASS trademarks, which are
immediately recognizable in the domain name), confusing similarity is not precluded by the inversion of the
elements of the trademark or by the addition of the terms “pass-” and “s-es”.
...The other disputed domain names resolve to inactive websites, which, under the circumstances of the case,
do not give rise to a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names.
The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.
...
2024-03-12 - Case Details
The choice of the disputed domain
names was made on purpose to generate a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks.
The Respondent corporation is represented by M. Mouselli, who has already been involved in previous court
cases in France involving the Complainant. ...To invoke the Policy, a Complainant must show that the domain
name at issue is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights, that the
Respondent lacks rights or a legitimate interest in the domain name, and that the Respondent registered and
used the name in bad faith. Policy, paragraph 4(a). ...
2024-07-29 - Case Details
The Panel notes that the Respondent has not provided evidence of circumstances of the type specified in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or evidence of any other circumstances giving rise to a right to or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. In particular, the Respondent has failed to make submissions or adduce evidence to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four circumstances which, without limitation, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith, namely:
(i) circumstances indicating that a respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to a complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent's website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with a complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent's website or location or of a product or service on the respondent's website or location.
...
2015-01-15 - Case Details
The Panel notes that the Respondent has not provided evidence of circumstances of the type specified in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or evidence of any other circumstances giving rise to a right to or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The Panel further notes that the Respondent has failed to submit a formal Response to the Complaint filed against it. ...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four circumstances which, without limitation, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith, namely:
(i) circumstances indicating that a respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to a complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with a complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the respondent’s website or location.
...
2015-01-06 - Case Details
Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four circumstances which, without limitation, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, namely:
(i) circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered or acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant who is the owner of the trade mark or service mark or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name; or
(ii) the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trade mark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s website or location.
...Registration of a domain name incorporating a widely-known trade mark, without any legitimate interest or genuine intent to use the same for legitimate purpose, is indicative of bad faith.
The Panel notes that the disputed domain name was registered only one day after the Complainant registered its domain name . ...
2016-01-22 - Case Details
In addition, each of the disputed domain names have been registered and used in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy; because the Respondent has used them to intentionally attempt to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to his websites, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade marks, as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the websites to which the disputed domain names resolve. ...D2000-0044, in which the panel found that simply using a domain name to advertise that it is for sale to any party does not support a respondent’s right or legitimate interest under the Policy.
The gTLDs “.shop”, “.boston” and “.miami”, are terms which might loosely be associated in some way with the Complainant and its business, albeit none of these words are obviously connected with an international engineering business in the manner contended for by the Complainant. ...
2018-06-19 - Case Details
Thus, the view is that the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with evidence of a right or legitimate interest in the domain name, once the complainant has made a prima facie showing. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. ...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, shall be considered evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
circumstances indicating that the respondent registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant (the owner of the trademark or service mark) or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) circumstances indicating that the respondent is using the domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.
...
2020-10-27 - Case Details
The Respondent notes that the PPC links on the website associated with the disputed domain name are automatically generated and contends that these do not relate in any way to the Complainant, adding that recent visits to said website have arisen from general interest keyword links for “cola”, “credit cards”, “flowers”, “groceries”, “Hulu packages”, “life insurance”, “mis fotos”, and “mobile software apps”. ...Now that the Respondent is on notice of the Complainant’s existence and the potential for future confusion via the appearance of related advertising links, the Respondent would do well to take active steps to suppress any future PPC advertising associated with the disputed domain name which might point in the direction of the Complainant’s line of business. ...
2020-06-09 - Case Details
The Respondent did not know of the existence of the Complainants. The registration causes no confusion because the public in China has not heard of the Complainants.
6. Discussion and Findings
6.1 Procedural Issues
A. ...Turning to the Response, the Panel can discern no allegation of a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The Respondent submits that neither the Complainant nor any other party obtained a Chinese trademark registration for ISOPLAM prior to his registration of the disputed domain name. ...
2020-04-01 - Case Details
The Complainant emphasizes that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to attract Internet users to its website and also to misleadingly divert them to linked websites advertising products and services of the Complainant’s competitors, whilst creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark PETROSSIAN as to source, affiliation and sponsorship of the Complainant’s trademark.
...Insofar as a respondent’s being commonly known by a domain name would give rise to a legitimate interest under the Policy, panels will carefully consider whether a respondent’s claim to be commonly known by the domain name – independent of the domain name – is legitimate. ...
2020-08-28 - Case Details