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
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
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
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
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
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
The Respondents‘ registration and use of the disputed domain names 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 names resolved to a website apparently intended for the sale of sports equipment.
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. ...
2020-09-22 - Case Details
Also, numerous past UDRP panels have held that hiding of the respondent’s identity serves as further evidence of bad faith registration and use, see e.g., Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / David Grandpierre,
WIPO Case No. ...
2019-06-04 - 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. ...
2019-12-02 - Case Details
Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been used in bad faith”.
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. ...
2020-01-27 - Case Details
The Panel also finds that the nature of the services provided on the website at the disputed domain name, in particular, downloading videos contrary to the Complainant's policies, cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial fair use (see, e.g., Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Polina Butenina,
WIPO Case No. D2018-1499).
Considering the above, the Panel finds the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...
2021-05-25 - 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
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
In the Panel’s view, no rights or
legitimate interests derive from using another’s registered 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.
...
2022-10-13 - Case Details
The Panel also finds that the nature of the services provided on the websites at the disputed domain names,
in particular, adding followers contrary to the Complainant’s policies, cannot constitute a bona fide offering of
goods or services or legitimate noncommercial fair use (see, e.g., Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v.
Polina Butenina, WIPO Case No. D2018-1499).
Noting the risk of implied affiliation between the disputed domain names and the confusingly similar well-
known trademark of the Complainant, the Panel finds that there is no plausible fair use to which the disputed
domain names could be put that would not have the effect of being somehow connected to the Complainant
(see, e.g., Instagram, LLC v. ...
2022-10-12 - Case Details
This is precisely the type of ‘relatively rapid
recognition’ that other UDRP panels have found to support trademark rights, even in the absence of
a trademark registration. For example, in Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Envient
(‘Chatroulette’), WIPO Case No. D2018-2240, the panel found that although the complainant did not
have any trademark registrations at the time the disputed domain name in that case was registered,
it had rights in its CHATROULETTE mark. ...
2022-05-18 - Case Details