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
Previous
panels appointed under the Policy have found that this is an indication of bad faith use of a disputed domain
name (see also MatchNet plc. v. MAC Trading, WIPO Case No. D2000-0205; Andrey Ternovskiy dba
Chatroulette v. Lukas Jansen, WIPO Case No. D2019-0781; and SODEXO v. Nihat Bahçe, FN Market /
Nihat BAHCE, fnmarket, WIPO Case No. ...
2025-12-23 - Case Details
Prior UDRP panels have found disputed domain names consisting of
interspersed trademarks or trademarks interspersed with other terms to be confusingly similar to the
trademarks at issue. See Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Lloyd Ales, WIPO Case No. D2018-0648
(). See also Facebook, Inc., Instagram, LLC v. ...
2022-08-25 - 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 (April 26, 2017) (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. ...
2022-08-19 - 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. ...
2023-03-28 - 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. ...
2022-05-05 - Case Details
While UDRP 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. ...
2023-06-02 - Case Details
D2017-1268 (ordering transfer of the domain name ); (d) Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Host Master, Transure Enterprise Ltd / Above.com Domain Privacy,
WIPO Case No. ...
2017-12-06 - 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. ...
2022-06-07 - Case Details
Previous panels appointed under the Policy have found that this is an indication of
bad faith use of a disputed domain name (see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.12: see also MatchNet plc. v.
MAC Trading, WIPO Case No. D2000-0205; Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Lukas Jansen, WIPO
Case No. D2019-0781; and SODEXO v. Nihat Bahçe, FN Market / Nihat BAHCE, fnmarket, WIPO Case No.
...
2025-07-07 - 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. ...
2022-03-30 - Case Details
D2016-0699 (“Panel agrees that the insertion of the additional letter ‘a’ is not effective to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant's trademark”); Andrey Ternovskiy d/b/a Chatroulette v. Super Privacy Service c/o Dynadot,
WIPO Case No. D2017-1238 (“the addition of this additional letter is barely perceptible and does nothing to detract from the confusing similarity between the Complainant's mark and the Domain Name”).
...
2020-03-02 - 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. ...
2022-11-25 - Case Details
Moreover,
notwithstanding that there is no clear evidence that the Respondent is directly deriving a commercial gain,
the circumstances at paragraph 4(b) of Policy are without limitation and bad faith can be found in other
circumstances where a respondent seeks to take unfair advantage of, or has otherwise engaged in behavior
detrimental to a complainant’s trade mark; see, for example, Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Polina
Butenina, WIPO Case No. D2018-1499.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has met its burden under this element.
7. ...
2022-05-24 - Case Details
The Panel also finds that the nature of the services provided on the website at the disputed domain name
, in particular, downloading unauthorized modification to the Complainant’s WhatsApp
application cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair
use (see, e.g., Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Polina Butenina, WIPO Case No. D2018-1499).
The Respondent has no right or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name
resolving to an inactive website under the circumstances of this case (see, e.g., Philip Morris USA Inc. v.
...
2025-05-05 - Case Details
Domain Administrator, Fundacion Privacy Services
LTD, WIPO Case No. D2024-4330, Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Domain Administrator, Fundacion
Privacy Services LTD, WIPO Case No. ...
2025-06-17 - Case Details
Other UDRP panels have recognized that no rights or legitimate interests derive from using another’s trademark 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. ...
2018-04-12 - Case Details
The addition of the term “racing” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity with the Complainant’s trademark; see Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Maria Di Blasi,
WIPO Case No. DEU2019-0031. Moreover, the disputed domain name comprises the first two words of the Complainant’s SUMMIT RACING EQUIPMENT trademark. ...
2019-08-08 - Case Details
Domain Admin / Domain Administrator, Fundacion Privacy Services LTD,
WIPO Case No. D2020-0376; and Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Domain Administrator, Fundacion, Privacy Services LTD,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-09-02 - Case Details
The Complainant explains in this context that the word “qroupe” obviously refers to the word “groupe” and is likely to be read by Internet users as such since these signs are visually and phonetically similar. The Complainant cites in this context Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org / Zichao Yang,
WIPO Case No. ...
2019-11-07 - Case Details