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
Por último, la circunstancia de que la empresa de mensajería contratada por el Centro informara el 14 de agosto de 2017, que el domicilio proporcionado por el Titular en la Ciudad de México es “incompleto/falso”, representa un indicio adicional de mala fe en el registro y uso del nombre de dominio en disputa. Ver Andrey Ternovskiy d/b/a Chatroulette v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Bob Maynard, Bootlets,
Caso OMPI No. ...
2017-09-22 - Case Details
The Complainant argues that the use of a trademark in a domain name in which letters have been omitted, added, inverted or substituted, a practice commonly known as “typosquatting” does not negate the confusingly similar aspects of the domain name under the Policy. See Andrey Ternovskiy dab Chatroulette v. RegistrationPprivate, Domains by Proxy, LLC/I S, ICS INC,
WIPO Case No. ...
2017-09-18 - Case Details
The Respondent Milen Radumilo had been ordered to transfer two other domain names in separate earlier UDRP decisions this year, being Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Privacy Protection Service, Provided through Communigal Communication Ltd, Perfect Privacy, LLC, Contact Privacy Inc. ...
2018-12-10 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided the Panel with appropriate evidence of the Complainant’s registration of its ALLIANZ trademark with both the DPMA and EUIPO, so the Panel concludes that the Complainant has sufficient rights in that mark to satisfy the threshold requirement of Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). See Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Sergey Kurguzenkov, Kurguzenkov S.V.,
WIPO Case No. D2018-0061 (“The Complainant has established his rights in the CHATROULETTE trademark by submitting copies of various trademark registrations”); and The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc v. ...
2018-06-22 - 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
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Andrei Tyukalov
Case Nos. D2018-0235, D2018-0239 and D2018-0311 consolidated
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette of Sliema, Malta, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.
...
2018-05-07 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Andrei Tyukalov
Case Nos. D2018-0235, D2018-0239 and D2018-0311 consolidated
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette of Sliema, Malta, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.
...
2018-05-07 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Andrei Tyukalov
Case Nos. D2018-0235, D2018-0239 and D2018-0311 consolidated
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette of Sliema, Malta, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.
...
2018-05-07 - 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. ...
2025-01-14 - Case Details
This is an unfair trade practice amounting to bad faith. See
Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Whois Agent, Domain Protection Services, Inc. / Marco Carta, MC, WIPO
Case No. ...
2024-10-17 - 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. ...
2020-02-19 - Case Details