Respondent is Bruno Wase of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...In the absence of any substantive use of the disputed domain name, in light of the above, the Panel cannot conceive of any bona fide use that Respondent could make of the disputed domain name.
...
2015-09-17 - Case Details
The Respondent is Ali Amir Aslankhan of Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (“the Domain Name”) is registered with IRNIC.
3. ...The Center verified that the Complaint and the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “irDRP”), the Rules for .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
...
2017-03-27 - Case Details
The Respondent is JH Kang, Republic of Korea.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Adding the ccTLD “.co” does not prevent the Domain Name from being identical to the Complainant’s mark, which is the distinctive component of the Domain Name.
...
2020-04-14 - Case Details
The Respondent is \ud55c\ub098 \uc774, Republic of Korea.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
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”).
...
2019-11-04 - Case Details
The Center verified that the Complaint and the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “irDRP”), the Rules for .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
...The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent does not use the disputed domain name with respect to a bona fide offering of goods or services. ...
2019-09-27 - 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”).
...The Complainant indicates that it was successful in effecting the transfer of the unauthorized domain name to it by the National Arbitration Forum (“NAF”) in circumstances similar to the present case (See LAND ROVER vs HK Domain Privacy /Name administrator, NAF Claim No. 1341065).
...
2011-09-20 - Case Details
October 29, 2002, the Registrar transmitted via e-mail to the Center, the Registrar’s Verification Response, confirming that CORE is the Registrar of the Domain Name, the Registrant is Jose Manuel Fernandez Garcia, and the language of the Service Agreement is English.
...Discussion and Findings
According to Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) that the Respondent’s Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
1. ...
2003-01-09 - Case Details
The Complainant has never granted the Respondent any license, authorization, or
consent to register a domain name incorporating the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent does not
satisfy the test to be recognized as a reseller with rights to the disputed domain name because the disputed
domain name is inactive. ...a merchant’s name (firm name) as registered in the Commercial Register of Latvia; and
(i) the domain name holder has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(ii) the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith”.
...
2026-07-01 - Case Details
Respondent is Justin DeGrodt of Wilmington Island, Georgia, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with SIDN through Sombrero.de GmbH.
3. ...The Benelux trademarks have been issued prior to the registration of the Domain Name by Respondent. The Domain Name was first registered on September 14, 2009, and the registration date of the Domain Name by Respondent is August 9, 2011.
5. ...
2012-05-09 - Case Details
The website at "newsony.com" consisted of a few pages displaying photos of virtually naked women, with the domain name "newsony.com" flashing in front of the naked women. Specifically, the SONY portion of the domain name is significantly larger than the rest of the domain name...Identical and confusing similarity:
It is clear from the record that the impugned domain name is identical to the name of the Complainant i.e. SONY. There is no doubt that the name/mark SONY of the Complainant and the impugned domain name i.e. ...
2001-04-24 - 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”).
...As for the remaining two, they both indicate addresses in the same state, and disputed domain
name shares the same phone number as disputed domain name
.
...
2025-04-08 - 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”).
...The login for the Complainant’s employee portal is titled “MyHR”.
The disputed domain name was registered on December 15, 2017. The disputed domain name resolves to a website titled “MyHR Kohls Login – Kohl’s Connection Associate Login”, which appears to offer guidance as to how to log into the Complainant’s employee portal. ...
2020-10-16 - Case Details
The Complainant attempted to purchase the disputed domain name through GoDaddy's brokerage service. The disputed domain name was initially listed for USD 24,999. ...This is supported by the Respondent's listing of the disputed domain name on a domain brokerage service.
The Respondent's ownership of the disputed domain name also constitutes passive holding in bad faith.
...
2015-12-07 - Case Details
The address of the Respondent as contained in the domain name registration is Aninkaistenkatu 5 A, 20100 Turku, Finland.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name at issue is "sampoleonia.com", which domain name is registered with Network Solutions, Inc. ...Cf. Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, Case No. D2000-0003.
Consequently, all the prerequisites for cancellation or transfer of the domain name according to Paragraph 4 (i) of the Rules are fulfilled.
...
2000-09-25 - Case Details
The Respondent is Mercado M., of Caloocan City, Philippines and Scarborough
Ontario, Canada.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (hereinafter also referred
to as the “Domain Name”) is registered with Tucows.
3. ...The Respondent registered the domain name
on January 15, 1999. The expiration date of the domain name is January 15, 2014.
5. ...
2004-11-12 - Case Details
The Respondent is Sumol Jha, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com,
LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...There is no evidence that the
Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name. The Respondent cannot establish rights in the
Domain Name, as it has not made use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name in
connection with a bona fide offering. ...
2022-09-05 - Case Details
Respondent is Yoto Abri, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (“Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc.
...Complainant
Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is substantially identical or confusingly similar to
Complainant’s trademark, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed
Domain Name, and that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2023-09-06 - Case Details
The Respondent is Charlotte Stephenson of Rickmansworth, UK.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the "Domain Name") is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its ALDI trademarks, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith.
...
2018-09-19 - Case Details
The Respondent is Adda Abang, Nigeria.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with OwnRegistrar, Inc. ...In addition, the Respondent has used the Domain Name together with the subdomain “va” which, in combination with the Domain Name, reads as “va.leroenergy.com”. ...
2021-03-12 - Case Details
The Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot / Dada Wang, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...There is no evidence that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name as a trademark or acquired unregistered trademark rights. The Respondent cannot establish rights in the Domain Name, as it has not made use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering. ...
2021-06-01 - Case Details