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
Domain Admin, Whois Protection / Accueil des Solutions, Inc,
WIPO Case No. D2014-0645; Spoke Media Holdings, Inc. v. Andrey Volkov,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1303; and 24/7 Real Media Inc. v. Thomas Schultz,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0043.
...Bad faith use is also clear from Respondent’s illegitimate conduct as discussed in detail in section 6.B. above, configuring the disputed domain name to link to a malicious website used for trapping consumers searching for Complainant’s services through a fraudulent popup Windows warning, directing trapped users to a help line used to spread viruses or malware and engage in a TechScam scheme harming unsuspecting consumers for Respondent’s commercial gain. See, Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Transfer Service, Sedo.com, LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2018-2510. Given the circumstances of this case, such a showing is sufficient to establish bad faith registration and use. ...
2021-10-19 - Case Details
High Tech Investments LTD, WIPO Case No. DCH2011-0030, Andrey Ternovskiy dba
Chatroulette v. On behalf of chatroulettede.com OWNER, c/o whoisproxy.com / Domain Admin, High Tech Investments LTD, WIPO
Case No. ...
2025-08-22 - 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 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. v. ...
2022-09-02 - 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. v. ...
2023-03-30 - 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.
...
2023-01-13 - Case Details
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name and
uses it to redirect to commercial parking pages featuring “Related searches” links, some of which reference
the Complainant or pertain to similar services, according to the evidence provided by the Complainant, not
contested by the Respondent.
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.
...
2023-01-04 - Case Details
No rights or legitimate interests derive from tarnishment of another’s trademark by using it to divert Internet users to pornographic websites. 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”); L’Oréal v. ...
2022-02-17 - Case Details
Furthermore, there is clear evidence of impersonation in the
Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name, according to the evidence provided by the Complainant, not
contested by the Respondent.
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
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?...
2022-04-25 - Case Details
The use of a domain name for malicious web attack or malware purposes in no way confers on the Respondent any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Goncharov Aleksei IUrevich,
WIPO Case No. D2018-0372 (finding no legitimate interests in the respondent’s registration of the domain name when the domain name was found to be used as an exploitation to “spread malware and viruses to Internet users”).
...
2022-01-28 - Case Details
The use of a domain name for malicious web attack or malware purposes in no way confers on the Respondent any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Goncharov Aleksei IUrevich,
WIPO Case No. D2018-0372 (finding no legitimate interests in the respondent’s registration of the domain when the domain name was found to be used as an exploitation to “spread malware and viruses to Internet users”).
...
2021-12-28 - 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 name 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. ...
2022-01-17 - Case Details
See, e.g., GIFI (SAS) v.
Sarp Agel, WIPO Case No. D2022-5012; Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Protection of Private
Person / Aleksandr Katkov, WIPO Case No. D2017-0381; L’Oréal v. ...
2023-03-23 - Case Details
Lastly, the
Respondent appears to have engaged in a bad faith pattern of cybersquatting having been found in bad faith
in previous UDRP decisions which dealt with cases targeting competitors of the Complainant in the video
chat industry (Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Private Registration, Account Privacy / Suren Akopian,
WIPO Case No. ...
2023-07-27 - Case Details
The Panel believes its finding is reinforced given that the Respondent has registered in the past several
domain names that reproduce or imitate other third party trademarks and has been found to have acted in
bad faith. See, for example, Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy,
LLC / Nanci Nette, Name Management Group, WIPO Case No. ...
2023-07-25 - 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.
...
2023-03-20 - 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. v. ...
2023-11-09 - Case Details
Domain Administrator, Fundacion Privacy Services LTD,
WIPO Case No. D2018-2854; Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Domain Administrator, Fundacion Privacy Service LTD,
WIPO Case No. ...
2020-06-03 - 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. ...
2020-04-27 - Case Details
Moreover, the Respondent knew or should have known that the disputed domain name included the Complainant’s worldwide and well-known LAZARD name and mark in its entirety and this comprises additional evidence of bad faith, as does the personal-named Respondent’s use of a privacy service to hide his identity; see O2 Holdings Limited v. Peter Davis,
WIPO Case No. D2012-1866, and Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. 1&1 Internet Limited,
WIPO Case No. D2017-0266.
In all of the above circumstances, the Respondent’s holding of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith use of it under the doctrine of passive holding; see Johnson & Johnson v. ...
2021-06-03 - Case Details