See B & H Foto &
Electronics Corp. v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. / Joseph Gross, WIPO Case No. D2010-0842. Here, the Panel
finds that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s COBALT STRIKE mark as it solely
consists of the COBALT STRIKE mark. ...Such use of the disputed domain name does not amount to a bone fide use or
provide Respondent with a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. ...
2022-10-05 - Case Details
The Complainant asserts that the representations and warranties that the Respondent made as to its
eligibility to obtain and maintain registration of the disputed domain name and as to third party rights have
become false and misleading subsequently to registration of the disputed domain name, which constitutes
evidence of bad faith within the terms of paragraph 4(b)(v) of the auDRP. ...This 2LD extension is generally disregarded in an assessment of identity or confusing
similarity between a domain name and a trademark for the purposes of the auDRP. See BT Financial Group
Pty Limited v. Basketball Times Pty Ltd, WIPO Case No. ...
2025-09-02 - Case Details
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").
...In any case, the Panel finds that this element, even in combination with two generic words, does not dispel the confusing similarity to the Complainant's trademark either.
Another additional element in each disputed domain name is the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") suffix ".com". A gTLD suffix generally has no capacity to distinguish a domain name from a trademark. ...
2016-01-14 - Case Details
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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”).
...Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a non-exclusive list of circumstances that may indicate a respondent’s
rights to or legitimate interests in a domain name. These circumstances are:
(i) before any notice of the dispute, the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the
disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide
offering of goods or services; or
(ii) the Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the
disputed domain name, even if it has not acquired trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without
intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at
issue.
...
2022-05-31 - Case Details
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has never authorized use of its mark, Respondent has never been known individually or professionally by the disputed domain name, and Respondent’s non-use of the disputed domain name for many years reveals no right or legitimate interest. ...D2007-0644 and cases cited at notes 5-11. When as in this proceeding the disputed domain name consists of common words the complainant’s task is even more difficult. American Appraisal Associates Inc. v. ...
2007-10-01 - Case Details
The Respondent is Marine Leclair of Oyonnax, France.
2. Domain Name
The dispute concerns the following domain name ("the Domain Name").
3. Procedural History
The Request was filed in German with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on October 20, 2014. ...See Vattenfall AB v. Roger Lundmark,
WIPO Case No. DCH2009-0021.
In this case, the Expert notes that a company affiliated with the Claimant was the registrant of the Domain Name until July 2014 (when a clerical error resulted in its lapse) and that the Claimant is the legitimate owner of a trademark for SHOP4 in Switzerland since 2010 (i.e. the Trademark) that is reflected in the Domain Name.
...
2015-01-14 - Case Details
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”).
...These examples include: (i) use of the domain name “in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services”; (ii) demonstration that respondent has been “commonly known by the domain name”; or (iii) “legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue”.
...
2010-12-16 - Case Details
The Center verified that the Complaint together with 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”).
...D2022-3539) and the domain names (IMC B.V. v.
JustinBaer, YKTS, WIPO Case No. D2022-3838), and (IMC B.V. v.
...
2023-07-03 - Case Details
The Respondent is lin caishen, Cambodia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. ...Ltd. and Advanced New Technologies Co., Ltd v. lin caishen
Case No. D2024-4780
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2025-01-08 - Case Details
The Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, United States / shuo wu, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant needs to establish a prima facie case showing 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. Once such prima facie case is made, the burden will shift to the Respondent to prove that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...
2021-12-27 - Case Details
Respondent is Guo Rong of Singapore.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (herein, “Disputed Domain Name”) is now registered with Domain.com, LLC. ...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”).
...
2012-07-05 - Case Details
The relevant section of the Policy states that “your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name [Note 1], trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights”. ...It has not been authorised by the Complainant to register or use the Domain Names or to seek the registration of any domain name incorporating the ZIPZ Mark or a mark similar to the ZIPZ Mark. ...
2013-07-05 - Case Details
The disputed domain name was registered on May 11, 2025. At the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed
domain name was not resolving to an active website. ...The disputed domain name was registered on May 11, 2025. At the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed domain name was not resolving to an active website. ...
2025-07-23 - Case Details
The disputed
domain name differs from the Trade Mark only through the removal of the “.au” Top-Level Domain.
- The Respondent has not been making a bona fide use of the disputed domain name. ...- The following are evidence of the registration or use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. The
registration of the disputed domain name prevents the Complainant from reflecting its Trade Mark in the
disputed domain name. ...
2025-06-13 - Case Details
The generic Top-Level
Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” in the disputed domain name does not eliminate the overall notion that the
designations are connected to the trade mark and the likelihood of confusion that the disputed domain
name and the trade mark are associated;
(b) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...The Respondent is not commonly
known by the disputed domain name, and has not made a bona fide offering of goods or services or a
legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name; and
page 3
(c) The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. ...
2023-02-20 - Case Details
The Respondent is Felix Rimele, United States of America (“United States”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Hostinger, UAB (the “Registrar”).
3. ...See, e.g., Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0903 (“the fact that a domain name wholly incorporates a complainant’s registered
mark is sufficient to establish identity or confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy”)).
...
2023-09-06 - Case Details
It is well-established in prior panel decisions under the UDRP that the entire incorporation of a complainant’s mark in a domain name is sufficient for a finding in this respect. See e.g., AT&T Corp. v. William Gormally,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0758, and the cases cited in that one; Nokia Corporation v. Nokiagirls.com a.k.a IBCC,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0102. It is well-established that the addition of the “.ir” ccTLD extension is, at best, irrelevant in considering this second element of the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i), or might even mislead consumers into the belief that the disputed domain name is the Complainant’s domain name for the Islamic Republic of Iran: Marks and Spencer Plc v. ...
2015-11-17 - Case Details
The Respondent is 黄海玲 (Hai Ling Huang), China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Chengdu West
Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. ...Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark, that the
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the Domain Name, and that the Domain
Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. ...
2022-12-05 - Case Details
Respondent is Domains By Proxy, LLC of the United States of America / Name Redacted.1
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The disputed domain name incorporates the SERVIER trademark in its entirety. Numerous UDRP panels have recognized that incorporating a trademark in its entirety can be sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name is at least confusingly similar to a registered trademark (see, e.g., PepsiCo, Inc. v. ...
2017-11-22 - Case Details
The Respondent is Kadir Sayir, Kadir, Turkey.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The addition of the term “sigara” to the disputed domain name is descriptive and corroborates the association with the Complainant’s IQOS products and trademarks (see Philip Morris Products S.A. v. ...
2019-09-11 - Case Details