The Respondent is George of Thessaloniki, Greece.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The Disputed Domain Name is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the "Registrar").
3. ...According to the information available on domain name marketplace Sedo, presented by the Complainant (Annex 9), the Disputed Domain Name is offered for sale for EUR 299. ...
2018-04-20 - Case Details
The Respondent is Rohan Mubbashir Khan, Turkey.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Complainant also submits that the Respondent’s purported recent involvement in the bad faith
registration and use of the domain name (as highlighted in Philip Morris Products S.A. v.
Rohan mubbashir Khan, WIPO Case No. ...
2022-05-30 - Case Details
See Ansell Healthcare Products Inc. v. Australian Therapeutics Supplies Pty, Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0110. The trademark remains clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name also includes a gTLD (“.store”), which is a technical requirement of domain name registration. ...
2020-08-27 - Case Details
In a decision dated February 13, 2012, VKR Holding A/S v. Stephen Batchelder,
WIPO Case No. D2011-2190, the panel found that the domain name was confusingly similar to the Complainant’s VELUX trade mark, that the Respondent did not have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, and, that the domain name was being used in bad faith. ...The trade mark VELUX is wholly encompassed within the Disputed Domain Name, which also includes the term “suntunnels” and the gTLD “.com”.
It is well established that the “.com” gTLD may be irrelevant for the purposes of determining whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which a complainant has rights under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy (see Bradford & Bingley Plc v. ...
2012-08-02 - Case Details
Further, previous UDRP panels have found that the incorporation of a well-known trademark in a domain
name having no plausible explanation for doing so is in itself an indication of bad faith (see Intel Corporation
v. ...ii) The Complainant is the holder of several BTWIN registered trademarks:
(hereinafter: “BTWIN trademarks”);
(iv) The Respondent is the holder of the disputed domain name, as disclosed by the Registrar;
(v) The disputed domain name was registered on June 24, 2022;
(vi) The disputed domain name resolves to a parking page in a relation to the products sold by the Complainant.
5. ...
2023-01-04 - Case Details
The Respondent is Registrant [1168318]; Moniker Privacy Services, of Pompano Beach, Florida; Registrant [1260512]: Domain Administrator, of Hong Kong, SAR of China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Moniker Online Services, LLC.
3. ...It has been expressed in prior similar decisions, that confusion may be heightened when a generic word added to a domain name coincides with the goods or services for which the trademark is registered. See for example Harrods Limited v. ...
2008-04-03 - Case Details
Respondent is David Sach of Pisek, Czech Republic.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with CSL Computer Service Langenbach GmbH dba Joker.com.
3. ...The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
...
2009-10-22 - Case Details
The Respondent is Client Care, Web Commerce Communications Limited, Malaysia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Alibaba.com Singapore E-Commerce
Private Limited (the “Registrar”).
3. ...It is long accepted in UDRP case law and jurisprudence that a complainant needs only to demonstrate at
least a prima facie case that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed
domain name. See Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455.
Where such a prima facie case is made, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to demonstrate
that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...
2024-08-15 - Case Details
Respondent is Domain Admin, Whoisprotection.cc, Malaysia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Alibaba.com Singapore E-Commerce
Private Limited (the “Registrar”).
3. ...case=D2021-4193
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Allbirds, Inc. v. Domain Admin, Whoisprotection.cc
Case No. D2022-1346
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. ...
2022-06-14 - Case Details
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant’s first use and first registration of its CROCS mark predates any use the Respondent may have made of the disputed domain name as a trade name, domain name, mark, or common name. ...The same approach was also applied by previous .UA panels (see, e.g., Володимир Михальчук v. Олександр Шев’яков,
WIPO Case No. DUA2020-0008.
The Panel finds that although at the time of this decision, the disputed domain name resolves to inactive webpage, its previous bad faith use by the Respondent makes any good faith use of the disputed domain name implausible. ...
2020-08-18 - Case Details
The Respondent is Hyder Jane, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with
Gandi SAS (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Disputed Domain Name currently
resolves to a parking page which displays a message stating that "this domain name has been registered
with Gandi.net" and advertises the Registrar's domain name registration and website hosting services.
5. ...
2023-06-19 - Case Details
In each case, the originally typed domain name disappears. (When the Panel typed in the disputed domain names, they were replaced by a domain name .) ...D2000-0587 and Edmunds.com, Inc v WWWEDMUNDS.com and DMUNDS.com,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0937. In relation to the disputed
domain name that was transferred to Respondent Iskra Service, see also Miles
D., Ltd dba Jazz Alley v. ...
2002-01-30 - Case Details
Respondent is Robert Hol’kin, Russian Federation.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Such additions do not avoid the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s OGILVY mark. See InfoSpace.com, Inc. v. Hari Prakash,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0076. ...
2020-08-13 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that the difference of one letter does not prevent confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s mark. At this point, the Complainant refers to Yurtici Kargo Servisi A.S. v. ...D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Paragraph 1 of the Rules defines reverse domain name hijacking as “using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain name holder of a domain name”. ...
2014-09-10 - Case Details
Neu of the United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Fabulous.com.
3. ...The Panel expressly
notes the previous decision Six Continents Hotels Inc. v. Damir Kruzicevic
– WIPO Case No. D2002-0674 which concerned
the domain name . ...
2003-07-17 - Case Details
Respondent is Akhil Rawat, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the
“Registrar”).
3. ...Leonardos
Sole Panelist
Date: September 30, 2026
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Robert Walters Holdings Limited v. Akhil Rawat
Case No. D2026-3491
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2026-10-01 - Case Details
The Respondent is Kent Cavern of Bakewell, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with eNom.
3. ...The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
...
2011-06-03 - Case Details
The Respondent is Aneko Bohner, Arlington, Washington , United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the
“Domain Name”) is registered with eNom.
3. ...The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
...
2006-07-19 - Case Details
The Center verified that the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
...D2010-1774; Revlon Consumer Products Corporation v. IONE Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1000).
Further, it is well established in decisions under the UDRP that the presence or absence of characters (e.g., hyphens, dots) in a domain name and indicators for top level domains (e.g., “.com”, “.info”, “.net”, “.org”) are typically irrelevant to the consideration of confusing similarity between a trademark and a domain name.
...
2013-05-02 - Case Details
The Respondent is Intdomain / Apexed of Burgenland, Austria.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Based on the evidence and the undisputed submissions of the Complainant, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has not given the Respondent permission to use the Trade Marks in the Domain Name and that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name.
Furthermore, the use of the Domain Name for a pay-per-click website, containing links to websites with information on goods competing with those of the Complainant does not constitute a “bona fide offering of goods or services”, nor a “legitimate noncommercial or fair use” (see Sanofi v. ...
2015-10-13 - Case Details