The Respondent is Ipe Tesa, United Arab Emirates (the).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The evidence that the disputed domain name has active MX records, a tool now
often used for phishing and fraudulent email activity linked to a domain name, is further indicia of bad faith
use. ...
2024-12-18 - Case Details
Respondent is Linda Myers, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NETIM SARL (the “Registrar”).
3. ...case=D2019-2983
page 3
Magazine Publishers Inc. v. Marcellod Russo, WIPO Case No. D2001-1049 (finding the domain name
confusingly similar to the VOGUE mark); Yahoo! ...
2023-02-01 - Case Details
Respondent is Angela Oster of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Melbourne IT Ltd.
3. ...Complainant
Complainant holds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its registered trademark BRADESCO and to its domain name . ...
2010-10-21 - Case Details
The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. PrivacyProtect.org and Kim Bum LLC,
WIPO Case No. ...
2013-05-15 - Case Details
The Respondent is Gilmore Thompson, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with CloudFlare,
Inc. ...The Panel considers that the lack of active use of the Disputed Domain Name cannot prevent a finding of
bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding (see TELEVISION FRANCAISE 1 v Julienne (Technologies
Futures 1), WIPO Case No. ...
2023-01-23 - Case Details
The Respondent is SKYEDGE EVENTS PTY LTD, Australia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Drop.com.au Pty Ltd (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The burden shifts to the Respondent to provide evidence of its rights or legitimate interests under paragraph
4(c) of the Policy (see, e.g., GlobalCenter Pty Ltd v. Global Domain Hosting Pty Ltd, WIPO Case No.
DAU2002-0001). The Respondent has not provided any evidence to demonstrate its rights or legitimate
interests in the disputed domain name.
...
2023-07-10 - Case Details
The Respondent is Crystal International of Seoul, Republic of Korea.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Megazone. Corp., dba HOSTING.KR (the "Registrar").
3. ...The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's trademark in its entirety, and the addition of the gTLD extension ".asia" in a domain name may be disregarded when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark (Proactiva Medio Ambiente, S.A. v. ...
2018-07-23 - Case Details
The Respondent is Saúl Ruiz González, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with NameSilo, LLC
(the “Registrar”).
3. ...DE C.V. v. Saúl Ruiz González
Case No. D2026-0405
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2026-04-02 - Case Details
Non-use of the disputed domain
name, self-evidently, does not comprise use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services;
see, for example VKR Holding A/S v. kuli, kuli, WIPO Case No. ...case=D2011-1745
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
B&B Hotels v. 五 新
Case No. D2024-1314
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2024-05-28 - Case Details
Registration of the disputed domain name which contains a
third party’s mark, in awareness of said mark and in the absence of rights or legitimate interests amounts to
registration in bad faith (see e.g., Cofra AG v. Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Name
Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2021-3762; F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Domain Administrator, See
PrivacyGuardian.org / Ponomarenko LTD, Pawlo Ponomarenko, WIPO Case No. ...
2022-07-21 - Case Details
The Complainant says that it can be inferred that the Former Respondent registered the disputed domain name to disrupt its business or to prevent the Complainant from reflecting its name in a corresponding domain name. ...The Former Respondent denies being the registrant of the disputed domain name. The Former Respondent says that its registration of the disputed domain name was made in the personal name of one of its directors, and therefore at no stage did the Former Respondent own the disputed domain name. ...
2010-11-10 - Case Details
The Respondent is Atrur Mhitryn, Belgium.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with
Hostinger Operations, UAB (the “Registrar”).
3. ...In the present case, the Panel finds that the evidence in the case shows the Respondent registered and has
used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.
On the issue of registration, taking into account the composition of the Disputed Domain Name and the
distinctive nature of the Complainant’s trademark, the Panel is satisfied that the Respondent knew of and
targeted the Complainant’s trademark ROPES & GRAY when it registered the Disputed Domain Name (see
Ropes & Gray LLP v. ...
2024-10-08 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc.
(the “Registrars”). Each disputed domain name is referred to as a “Disputed Domain Name” in this decision
and together they are referred to as the “Disputed Domain Names”.
3. ...Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the KAPPA trademark. The Panel finds that each of the Disputed Domain
Names is confusingly similar to this trademark. Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that domain
names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name
includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain
name” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2023-04-04 - Case Details
Respondent is PrivacyProtect.org of Moergestel, the Netherlands / Dena Lanterman, TBA Corp. of Geneva, Switzerland.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. ...Hence, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark TAMIFLU (see F. Hoffmann-La Roche v. Globex International,
WIPO Case No. ...
2009-09-17 - Case Details
The Respondent is equinor103@gmail.com, equinnor, United Kingdom.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Hostinger, UAB (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Respondent is not commonly known by
the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a
bona fide offering of goods or services.
...
2023-06-28 - Case Details
The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the "Disputed Domain Name") is registered with Name.com, Inc. ...This trademark is fully integrated in the Disputed Domain Name. It stands prominently at the beginning of the Disputed Domain Name and is followed by the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".click". ...
2017-05-08 - Case Details
The Respondent is Arca Web Hizmetleri, Sabri Ülker, Tolga Senbakar of Istanbul, Turkey.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with eNom (the “Registrar”).
3. ...In particular, the Panel notes that the Respondent cannot claim any personal name rights in the disputed domain name. For two reasons, the Panel is convinced that “Sabri Ülker” is not the true name of the disputed domain name holder. ...
2012-11-22 - Case Details
The Respondent is Yozgyur Dilek, Bulgaria.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Panel has also independently established, using publicly available expired domain name sales records,
that the disputed domain name was sold in an expired domain name auction held by the Registrar on
July 31, 2024.
...
2025-06-17 - Case Details
In other words, it is important to ensure fairness to the parties and the maintenance of an inexpensive and expeditious avenue for resolving domain name disputes (Whirlpool Corporation, Whirlpool Properties, Inc. v. Hui'erpu (HK) electrical appliance co. ltd.,
WIPO Case No. ...Complainant has therefore established a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and thereby shifts the burden to Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption (The Argento Wine Company Limited v. ...
2017-12-19 - Case Details
The Respondent is John Sansone, Denver, Colorado, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with eNom, Inc.
of Bellevue, Washington, United States of America.
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”).
...
2004-11-30 - Case Details