The Panel has also taken into
consideration that fact that the Respondent appears to be engaging in a pattern of cybersquatting, as
demonstrated by his numerous registrations of other domain names comprising third party trademarks and
history as a named respondent in other UDRP proceedings (see, for example, Andrey Ternovskiy dba
Chatroulette v. Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org / Zhichao Yang, WIPO Case No.
...
2022-10-18 - Case Details
Additionally, no rights or legitimate interests derive from the tarnishment of another’s trademark by using it to
divert Internet users to pornographic websites (Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Protection of Private
Person / Aleksandr Katkov, WIPO Case No. D2017-0381; Neste Oil Oyj v. ...
2022-12-27 - Case Details
See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, 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. ...
2023-01-20 - 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. ...
2025-12-15 - 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 etc., cannot constitute a bona f ide of fering of goods or
services or legitimate noncommercial fair use (see, e.g., Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Polina
Butenina, WIPO Case No. D2018-1499).
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name
resolving to an inactive website (see, e.g., Philip Morris USA Inc. v. ...
2025-04-28 - Case Details
Based on the evidence of use and promotion especially given the unique context of
“relatively rapid recognition” that UDRP panels have found to support trademark rights, even in the absence
of a trademark registration, as well as the careful considerations made in the analyses of Complainant’s use
and promotion evidence by prior UDRP panels who recognized Complainant’s common law trademark rights
this Panel concurs and finds Complainant has common law rights in the SUNDAESWAP mark. See Andrey
Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Envient, WIPO Case No. D2018-2240; see also SundaeSwap Labs, Inc. v.
...
2024-06-20 - Case Details
Michele Dinoia, WIPO Case No. D2006-0915; and
Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Privacy Administrator, Anonymize, Inc / Michele Dinoia, Macrosten
Ltd, WIPO Case No. ...
2024-02-26 - Case Details
Arcanite Media Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. DSE2017-0031; Andrey Ternovskiy dba CHATROULETTE v. Arcanite Media Ltd., WIPO
Case No. DRO2019-0003; and Facebook Inc. v. ...
2022-03-29 - Case Details
Domains by Proxy, LLC / Rob van Eck,
WIPO Case No. D2014-0206, Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. DGM Domains,
WIPO Case No. D2017-1345). The Panel agrees with this point. ...
2022-03-09 - Case Details
It says this is precisely the type of
“relatively rapid recognition” that panels under the UDRP have found to support trademark rights, even in the
absence of a trademark registration. For example, in Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Envient, 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. ...
2022-05-16 - Case Details
Cabe señalar que la inclusión completa de una marca registrada en un nombre de dominio
puede ser suficiente para considerar la existencia de similitud hasta el punto de poderlo confundir entre
ellos. En este sentido, pueden señalarse la decisión Andrey Ternovskiy (dba Chatroulette) c. AL Services,
Caso OMPI No. DES2018-0013.
Nótese que el hecho de que algunas de las marcas invocadas por el Demandante sean posteriores a la
fecha del registro de los nombres de dominio en disputa por el Demandado es irrelevante a efectos del
primer elemento de la Política. ...
2024-01-05 - Case Details