The addition of the letters “og” in the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of confusing
similarity. See Gannett Co., Inc. v. Henry Chan, WIPO Case No. ...case=D2002-0787
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
WhatsApp LLC v. AHMED MOHAMMED AHMED ALSARMANI
Case No. D2024-5090
1.The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. ...
2025-01-27 - Case Details
See Advance Magazine Publishers
Inc., Les Publications Conde Nast S.A. v. Voguechen, WIPO Case No. D2014-0657.
The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. ...case=D2020-0294
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
MTD Products Inc v. Mohamed Setri
Case No. D2023-5085
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2024-02-22 - Case Details
The Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith.
Because Complainant’s mark had been used and registered by Complainant before the Domain Name
registration, and noting the content of the corresponding website, it is clear that Respondent had
Complainant’s mark in mind when registering the Domain Name (Tudor Games, Inc. v. ...The above further indicates that Respondent knew of Complainant and chose the Domain Name with
knowledge of Complainant and its industry (Safepay Malta Limited v. ICS Inc., WIPO Case No.
...
2023-03-27 - Case Details
The silence of a respondent may support a
finding that it has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. See Alcoholics Anonymous
World Services, Inc., v. Lauren Raymond, WIPO Case No. D2000-0007; Ronson Plc v. ...Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Krug Jr Robert
John, WIPO Case No. D2020-2662 (Finding that the disputed domain name , which
redirected to complainant’s official website, not to be a bona fide use of the disputed domain name); Bureau
Veritas v. ...
2024-01-31 - Case Details
The Respondent is Shi Lei, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Spaceship, Inc. ...case=D2023-4157
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Pfizer Inc. v. Shi Lei
Case No. D2024-4517
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2025-01-14 - 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 WH Smith Plc. v. Djoel
Primus, WIPO Case No. D2023-5342; G4S Limited v. Zakiyullah Parkar, Sole Owner, WIPO Case No.
D2024-4797; Magna International Inc. v. TsukimuraReiko, WIPO Case No. D2025-1930).
Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent the finding of bad faith under the
doctrine of passive holding. ...
2026-01-05 - Case Details
It is well-settled that the practice of typosquatting, of itself, is evidence of the bad faith registration of a
domain name. See, Longs Drug Stores Cal., Inc. v. Shep Dog, WIPO Case No. D2004-1069 (February 28,
2005) (finding typosquatting to be evidence of bad faith domain name registration); Lexar Media, Inc. v.
...case=D2000-0111
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
SolvChem, Inc. v. Name Redacted
Case No. D2025-1079
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2025-05-13 - Case Details
See Moderna, Inc., ModernaTX, Inc. v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot / Shawn Wang, WIPO Case
No. D2022-2125 (“The registration of a domain name, confusingly similar to a third party’s well-known
trademark, without authorization, or rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, can create a
presumption of registration in bad faith by itself.”); Modernatx, Inc. v. ...Foster
Sole Panelist
Date: October 20, 2022
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Modernatx, Inc. v. Derek Chaves
Case No. D2022-3310
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2022-11-03 - Case Details
D2017-0275; Hay & Robertson International Licensing AG v. C. J. Lovik,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0122).
The Panel finds the mark is identical to the Domain Name.
...Because the OME TV mark had been widely used and registered at the time of the Domain Name
registration by Complainant, the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent had Complainant’s mark
in mind when registering the Domain Name (Tudor Games, Inc. v. ...
2024-01-05 - Case Details
The registrant of the disputed domain name is Mark Bush, Netherlands (Kingdom of the) (the “Respondent”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with SIDN through Realtime Register.
3. ...It is also well established precedent that the country code
Top-Level Domain “.nl” (“ccTLD”) may be disregarded in assessing confusing similarity between the
trademark on the one hand and the disputed domain name on the other hand (see, e.g., Roompot Recreatie
Beheer B.V. v. ...
2023-11-24 - Case Details
Respondent is Openings Paramount, Paramount Global, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Tucows Inc. ...case=D2018-1416
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Paramount Pictures Corporation v. Openings Paramount, Paramount Global
Case No. D2024-3805
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. ...
2024-11-20 - Case Details
This addition rather reinforces the impression that the disputed
domain name is associated with the Complainant or, at least, that the Respondent unduly benefits from the
Complainant’s trademarks (Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...Seeing as the Respondent used the disputed domain name for fraudulent
purposes, the disputed domain name has been acquired and used in bad faith (The Prudential Assurance
Company Limited v. ...
2022-11-30 - Case Details
See Synopsys, Inc. v. Office Rolls, supra; Synopsys, Inc. v. Anton Kim, WIPO Case No. D2025-0111. The
Complainant also argues that the Respondent could not credibly sustain that it did not have prior knowledge
of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. ...Pereira dos Santos
Sole Panelist
Date: September 11, 2025
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Synopsys, Inc. v. Sanskruti Parthe
Case No. D2025-2974
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2025-09-17 - Case Details
In
fact, the domain name comprises the Complainant’s trademark […] with a single misspelling of an element of
the mark: a double consonant ‘s’ at the end.”); see also Redbox Automated Retail, LLC d/b/a Redbox v.
...See, e.g., Pfizer Inc. v. NA, WIPO Case No. D2005-0072.
Even more, there is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or has
used the Disputed Domain Name for a bona fide purpose. ...
2023-07-25 - Case Details
The silence of a respondent may support a
finding that it has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. See Alcoholics Anonymous
World Services, Inc., v. Lauren Raymond, WIPO Case No. D2000-0007; Ronson Plc v. ...See Moncler S.p.A. v.
Bestinfo, WIPO Case No. D2004-1049 (“the Panel notes that the respondent’s name is ‘Bestinfo’ and that it
can therefore not be ‘commonly known by the Domain Name.’”)
...
2024-05-20 - Case Details
Prior UDRP panels have supported
this limitation. See Zions Bancorporation v. Domain Administrator, Fundacion Private Whois, WIPO Case
No. D2014-0465.
Complainant also shows the MX records for the disputed domain name indicate that Respondent may also
be using it for sending fraudulent emails. ...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Finally, Complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the disputed domain name has
been registered and used in bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. See, e.g., Hallmark Licensing,
LLC v. ...
2024-02-06 - Case Details
See e.g. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. Jon Hall, WIPO Case No. D2017-0413
(“Respondent’s acquisition and offering for sale the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to a
well-known Mark does not establish rights or legitimate interests under the Policy”); and Elecnor, S.A. v.
...Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel
orders that the disputed domain name, , be transferred to Complainant.
/Phillip V. Marano/
Phillip V. ...
2023-08-09 - Case Details
Therefore, noting also the composition of
the Domain Name, the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent had Complainant’s mark in mind
when registering the Domain Name (Tudor Games, Inc. v. ...The non-use of a domain name does not prevent
a finding of bad faith (See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No.
...
2023-02-02 - Case Details
The
silence of a respondent may support a finding that it has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the
domain name. See Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc., v. Lauren Raymond, WIPO Case No.
D2000-0007; Ronson Plc v. ...See
CBSBroadcasting Inc. v. Edward Enterprises, WIPO Case No. D2000-0242. Here, with a statement from
Respondent that he did not intend to use the Domain Name and with no explanation concerning
Respondent’s intent in registering the Domain Name, Respondent’s passive holding of the Domain Name
incorporating the well-known EBAY Mark, does not amount to a bona fide use. ...
2022-10-28 - Case Details
That
the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or widely-known
trademark by an unaffiliated entity can create a presumption of bad faith (and cites Panavision Intern., L.P. v.
...D2014-0365 and Jupiter Investment Management
Group Limited v. N/A, Robert Johnson, WIPO Case No. D2010-0260).
Previous Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, in this case, impersonation and
or passing off, constitutes bad faith. ...
2025-03-10 - Case Details