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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
In particular, the following factors have been considered relevant in
applying the passive holding doctrine (see Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. WhoisGuard Protected,
WhoisGuard, Inc. / Armando Machado, WIPO Case No. ...
2023-01-12 - Case Details