Use of a domain name for purposes such as phishing or malware distribution, constitutes bad faith use (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4) and further evidences bad faith (Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Transfer Service, Sedo.com, LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2018-2510).
The Domain Name subsequently resolved to a blocked website containing a malicious content warning. ...
2021-09-30 - Case Details
Use of a domain name for purposes such as phishing or malware distribution, constitutes bad faith use (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4) and further evidences bad faith (Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Transfer Service, Sedo.com, LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2018‑2510).
The Panel considers also the apparent initial concealment of the Domain Name holder’s identity through use of a privacy shield is further indicative of bad faith (BHP Billiton Innovation Pty Ltd v. ...
2021-09-20 - Case Details
In the Panel’s view, no rights or legitimate interests derive from using another’s trademark to divert Internet users to a pornographic and gambling website, see in this regard also several prior UDRP decisions such as Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Protection of Private Person / Aleksandr Katkov,
WIPO Case No. D2017-0381; L’Oréal v. ...
2021-08-11 - Case Details
In addition, use of a domain name for purposes such as phishing, constitutes bad faith use (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4) and further evidences bad faith (Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Transfer Service, Sedo.com, LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2018-2510).
The Domain Names subsequently resolved to an inactive and a blocked website containing a malicious content warning, respectively. ...
2021-10-13 - Case Details
The addition of
the terms “holding” and “gmbh”, the separating hyphens, and the gTLD “.com” does not prevent a finding of
confusing similarity with the Trademarks (see sections 1.8 and 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and Andrey
Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. On behalf of chatroulettede.com OWNER, c/o whoisproxy.com / Domain
Admin, High Tech Investments LTD, WIPO Case No. ...
2023-02-13 - Case Details
The addition of
the term “group” and the gTLD “.com” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity with the Trademarks
(see sections 1.8 and 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. On
behalf of chatroulettede.com OWNER, c/o whoisproxy.com / Domain Admin, High Tech Investments LTD,
WIPO Case No. ...
2022-12-23 - Case Details
D2022-3059; Seintec
Norte, S.L. v. yu Liu, wangluochuanmei, WIPO Case No. D2021-1815; Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette
v. Protection of Private Person / Aleksandr Katkov, WIPO Case No. D2017-0381; and Averitt Express, Inc.
...
2023-03-13 - Case Details
The Panel also finds that there appears to be a “pattern of conduct” on the part of the Respondent, from the many domain name disputes in which he was also a respondent (e.g., Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org / Zhichao Yang,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-07-02 - Case Details
According to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, registration or use of a domain name will be considered in bad
faith when:
“by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to
your web site or other online 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.”
As mentioned in Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Alexander Ochkin, 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.
...
2025-01-20 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has engaged in pattern of registering domain names
including the trademarks of well-known brands. It cites, for example, Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v.
Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org / Zhichao Yang, WIPO Case No. ...
2024-12-19 - Case Details
The website at “www.mostedwanted.nu” displays links to various other sites, including commercial third-party websites offering adult content and a phone number for adult escort services.
2 Many other panels have similarly found that the unauthorized use of identical or confusingly similar domain names to direct users to pornographic websites supports a finding of bad faith and precludes finding legitimate rights and interests under the Policy. E.g., Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Protection of Private Person / Aleksandr Katkov,
WIPO Case No. D2017-0381(respondent’s use of domain name to redirect Internet users to pornographic websites “should and could not be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services”); Prada S.A. v. ...
2018-05-22 - Case Details
The Panel finds that this use of the confusingly similar disputed domain names for pay-per-click linkage is an intentional attempt by the Respondent to gain commercially by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website, and thus exemplifies bad faith registration and use of those names per Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv). See Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Admin Mabinc, Mab Inc,
WIPO Case No. D2018-0806 (“The other disputed domain names resolve to a landing page with PPC links, some of which resolve to sites that compete directly with the Complainant’s website. . .In each scenario, these facts satisfy the requirements of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.”); and Autodesk Inc. v. ...
2018-07-25 - Case Details
PrivacyProtect.org / Li Jing, Wang Jianguo, and Yang Yan,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0016, regarding and Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. 1&1 Internet Limited,
WIPO Case No. D2017-0266 regarding .
...
2018-10-15 - Case Details
The Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name wholly incorporating a well-known third-party mark is, in the Panel‘s view, indicative of bad faith, since, as proven by the Complainant, the disputed domain name resolved to a website for the same activities as the Complainant’s website, reproducing the Complainant’s trademark, and creating an appearance of association or affiliation with the Complainant.
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. ...
2020-08-10 - Case Details
The WIPO Overview 3.0, at section 3.3, describes the circumstances under which the passive holding of a domain name will be considered to be in bad faith: “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. ...
2020-03-04 - Case Details
D2009-0798 (“[t]he repeated letter does not significantly affect the appearance or pronunciation of the domain name, and when compared to the… trademark, it is a classic example of typosquatting”); Andrey Ternovskiy d/b/a Chatroulette v. Super Privacy Service c/o Dynadot,
WIPO Case No. D2017-1238 (“this additional letter is barely perceptible and does nothing to detract from the confusing similarity between the Complainant’s mark and the Domain Name”); and Rediff.com India Limited v. ...
2019-05-27 - Case Details
Furthermore, there is a clear impersonation in the section “riguardo a noi” (about us), that contains the title “Golden Goose Deluxe Brand” and the story of the Complainant.
As mentioned in Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Alexander Ochkin,
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. ...
2020-12-08 - Case Details
D2009-0798 (“[t]he repeated letter does not significantly affect the appearance or pronunciation of the domain name, and when compared to the […] trademark, it is a classic example of typosquatting”); Andrey Ternovskiy d/b/a Chatroulette v. Super Privacy Service c/o Dynadot,
WIPO Case No. D2017-1238 (“this additional letter is barely perceptible and does nothing to detract from the confusing similarity between the Complainant’s mark and the Domain Name”); and Rediff.com India Limited v. ...
2019-11-13 - Case Details
Bogdan Surdu and Arcanite Media Ltd,
WIPO Case No. DRO2019-0001; Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Arcanite Media Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. DRO2019-0003; Swedish Match North Europe AB v. ...
2020-07-07 - Case Details
In the Panel’s view, no rights or legitimate interests derive from using another’s trademark to divert Internet users to a pornographic website, see in this regard also several prior UDRP decisions such as Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Protection of Private Person / Aleksandr Katkov,
WIPO Case No. D2017-0381; L’Oréal v. ...
2021-07-19 - Case Details