Domain Administrator / Zhichao Yang,
WIPO Case No. D2015-1991; Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org / Zhichao Yang,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-08-05 - 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
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
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
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
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
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
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 concealment of the Domain Name holder’s identity through use of a privacy shield, which is further indicative of bad faith (BHP Billiton Innovation Pty Ltd v. ...
2021-08-18 - Case Details
In another case, the panel held that the domain name was confusingly similar to the trademark CHATROULETTE. See Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Lloyd Ales,
WIPO Case No. D2018-0648. If the jarring word “sex” did not significantly dilute confusing similarity in the Chatroulette case, then it would seem logically to follow that the unspectacular word “and” does little or nothing to efface the prominence of the famous FACEBOOK mark in these Domain Names.
...
2021-08-13 - Case Details
Moniker Privacy Services / Whois Agent, Domain Protection Services, Inc. / Zhichao Yang,
WIPO Case No. D2019-2787; Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org / Zhichao Yang,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-10-13 - 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. ...
2021-10-12 - 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
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 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
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 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
Use of a domain name for purposes such as phishing constitutes bad faith use (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4; see also Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Transfer Service, Sedo.com, LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2018-2510).
Furthermore, the Domain Name was being offered for sale on “sedo.com” for a minimum of USD 800. ...
2021-11-17 - 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