While panels 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. ...
2022-12-20 - 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. ...
2023-02-13 - 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
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
D2018-1087; Accenture Global Services Limited v. Name Redacted,
WIPO Case No. D2018-0777; Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. AM F,
WIPO Case No. D2017-1008; Express Scripts, Inc. v. Kal Kuchora,
WIPO Case No. ...
2019-02-12 - Case Details
Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org / Zhichao Yang,
WIPO Case No. D2019-0856; Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org / Zhichao Yang,
WIPO Case No. ...
2020-06-10 - Case Details
D2020-2286; Sanofi and Sanofi Biotechnology v. 杨智超 (Zhichao Yang),
WIPO Case No. D2020-2560; Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org / Zhichao Yang,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-06-23 - Case Details
D2019-1740, Echobox Audio, LLC v. Nanci Nette,
WIPO Case No. D2019-0751, Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC, DomainsByProxy.com / Nanci Nette, Name Management Group,
WIPO Case No. ...
2020-10-30 - 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
Indeed, the combination of the two marks “does not eliminate the visual impression that the disputed domain name is associated with” Complainant. Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Domain Admin ContactID 2420118, FBS INC, Whoisprotection biz / Masallah Avci,
WIPO Case No. ...
2019-04-10 - Case Details
The Respondent has engaged in a pattern of abusively registering domain names corresponding to trademarks held by legitimate trademark rights holders, which constitutes a basis for a finding of bad faith under Paragraph 4 (b)(ii) of the Policy (see, Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / VMI INC,
WIPO Case No. ...
2019-02-26 - 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. ...
2025-09-23 - Case Details
The Panel also finds that the nature of the services provided on the website at the disputed domain name, in
particular, sale access to channels on the WhatsApp platform, using third party-phone numbers, has the
effect of facilitating the use of the Complainant's services contrary to the Complainants business terms of
service, 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).
Furthermore, the Respondent has no right or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name resolving to
an inactive website at the time of this Decision (see, e.g., Philip Morris USA Inc. v. ...
2022-08-01 - Case Details
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. ...
2021-10-21 - Case Details
While panels 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. ...
2022-07-15 - 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. ...
2023-01-06 - Case Details
These cases demonstrate that Respondent has repeatedly targeted in bad faith well-known third party trademarks. See, e.g., Andrey Ternovskiy dba ChatRoulette v. Robert Stewart / Hush IP LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2018-1680; Lego Juris A/S v. ...
2021-12-17 - Case Details
While panels 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. ...
2023-08-08 - 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).
Currently, the Domain Names lead to inactive websites. ...
2023-07-05 - Case Details