WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. PrivacyDotLink Customer 2682907 / Evelyn Vict, DBF Group
Case No. DME2018-0001
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette of Moscow, Russian Federation, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.
...
2018-03-16 - Case Details
Centro de Arbitraje y Mediación de la OMPI
DECISIÓN DEL EXPERTO
Andrey Ternovskiy (dba Chatroulette) c. AL Services
Caso No. DES2018-0013
1. Las Partes
El Demandante es Andrey Ternovskiy (dba Chatroulette) con domicilio en Sliema, Malta, representado por CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Suecia (el "Demandante").
...
2018-09-04 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC, DomainsByProxy.com / I S, ICS INC
Case No. D2018-0099
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette of Sliema, Malta, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.
...
2018-03-13 - Case Details
Domains by Proxy, LLC / Management Group, Nanci Nette,
WIPO Case No. D2018-1453; Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Registration Private, Domains By
Proxy, LLC / Nanci Nette, Name Management Group, WIPO Case No. D2018-2508; Andrey Ternovskiy dba
Chatroulette v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC, DomainsByProxy.com / Nanci Nette, Name
Management Group, WIPO Case No. ...
2023-01-04 - Case Details
The Company Manager Limited Domain / Maria Di Blasi,
Litige OMPI No. DEUL2017-0002; Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Maria Di Blasi,
Litige OMPI No. DEUL2018-0004; Skyscanner Limited v. ...
2021-01-22 - Case Details
The Respondent also appears as the respondent in numerous domain name dispute proceedings, most of them concluding that the Respondent targeted a trademark in bad faith. These other proceedings include: Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC, DomainsByProxy.com / Nanci Nette, Name Management Group,
WIPO Case No. D2018-2573 (; no response; domain name transferred); Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Nanci Nette, Name Management Group,
WIPO Case No. ...
2019-05-16 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Admin Mabinc, Mab Inc
Case No. D2018-0806
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette of Sliema, Malta, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.
...
2018-06-01 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Gregory Rivera
Case No. D2018-2388
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette of Sliema, Malta, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.
...
2018-12-21 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Li Hong Bo
Case No. D2017-2352
1. The Parties
Complainant is Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette of Moscow, Russian Federation, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.
...
2018-01-31 - Case Details
Further, the Respondent is using the disputed domain names, inter alia, resolving to a variety of websites, some of which attempt to deceive Internet users into downloading and installing malicious software, according to the uncontested allegations of the Complainant. This is not a bona fide use (see eg Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Transfer Service, Sedo.com, LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2018-2510).
Finally, the default of the Respondent in the present circumstances seems to reinforce “the inference of bad faith registration and bad faith use” (The Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited v. ...
2022-01-26 - Case Details
It is clear that the disputed domain names are an example of typosquatting, which constitutes registration and use in bad faith, according to past UDRP panels (See Sanofi v. Marek Zdanowicz,
WIPO Case No. D2016-2545 and Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Milen Radumilo,
WIPO Case No. D2016-1926).
In this sense, the Panel verifies that the disputed domain names are typosquatting domains, as each of the disputed domain names is a close misspelling of the trademark CAMBRIDGE.
...
2018-10-19 - Case Details
In this regard, Respondent has received several adverse UDRP decision rulings, with a finding of bad faith. These include, among others, Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. S. Jon Grant,
WIPO Case No. D2018-1110.
Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph (4)(a)(iii) of the Policy.
7. ...
2022-01-31 - Case Details
The Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name wholly incorporating a well-known third-party mark is, in the Panels view, indicative of bad faith, since the domain name resolves to a website for the same activities as the Complainant’s website.
As mentioned in Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Alexander Ochki,
WIPO Case No. D2017-03341:
“It is clear in the Panel’s view that in the mind of an Internet user, the disputed domain names could be directly associated with the Complainant’s trademark, which is likely to be confusing to the public as suggesting either an operation of the Complainant or one associated with or endorsed by it (see AT&T Corp. v. ...
2018-11-09 - Case Details
The
Respondent has furthermore filed and subsequently lost in previous UDRP cases a significant amount of
domain names, always following the same pattern. See e.g. Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v.
Above.com Domain Privacy / Shu Lin, WIPO Case No. D2018-2713 (transfer of ),
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. ...
2023-01-02 - Case Details
The WIPO Overview 3.0, at section 3.3, describes the circumstances under which the passive holding of a domain will be considered to be a bad faith registration: “While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put.” See Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Armando Machado,
WIPO Case No. ...
2020-12-23 - Case Details
The WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), at section 3.3, describes the circumstances under which the passive holding of a domain will be considered to be a bad faith registration: “While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put.” See Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Armando Machado,
WIPO Case No. ...
2020-12-22 - Case Details
Perfect Privacy LLC / Milen Radumilo,
WIPO Case No. D2016-2173 (December 9, 2016); Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Milen Radumilo,
WIPO Case No. D2016-1926 (November 7, 2016); BASF SE v. ...
2017-06-21 - Case Details
Likewise,
the Disputed Domain Name’s redirection to an adult content website is never considered a fair or bona fide
use of a domain name. See, e.g., Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Protection of Private Person /
Aleksandr Katkov, WIPO Case No. D2017-0381 (finding the respondent’s use of the domain name
to redirect Internet users to pornographic websites “should and could not be
considered a bona fide offering of goods or services”); see also Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. shilin Li¸
WIPO Case No. ...
2022-11-01 - Case Details
It plainly has rights in those words as
1 For example:
Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Transfer Service, Sedo.com, LLC, WIPO Case No. D2018-2510 : “In the Panel’s opinion, the fact
that the website operated under the disputed domain name has in the past been used in connection with an attempt to infect internet
users’ computers with viruses or malware, giving rise to a legitimate concern on the part of the Complainant that future use of the
disputed domain name could result in serious economic damage to the Complainant’s reputation. ...
2022-05-31 - Case Details
The Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names wholly incorporating the Complainant’s trade mark is, in the Panels view, indicative of bad faith, since the disputed domain names resolve to websites relating to the same activities as the Complainant’s website.
As mentioned in Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Alexander Ochki,
WIPO Case No. D2017-0334:
“It is clear in the Panel’s view that in the mind of an Internet user, the disputed domain names could be directly associated with the Complainant’s trademark, which is likely to be confusing to the public as suggesting either an operation of the Complainant or one associated with or endorsed by it (see
AT&T Corp. v. ...
2019-01-30 - Case Details