The Center verified that the 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 Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
...The Complainant’s trade marks have been recognized as famous in various Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) decisions.
With reference to use in bad faith, the disputed domain names were registered but not actively used for a website. ...
2012-12-24 - Case Details
Respondent is not making a legitimate non-commercial
or fair use of the domain name. Respondent is simply not using the
domain name for any legitimate purposes, other than to sell the domain name
to Complainant. ...Even a passive
holding of the domain name amounts to "acting in bad faith." See
Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, Case No. ...
2001-07-09 - Case Details
The Respondent is Chaiyakarn Sudampanthorn of Suratthani, Thailand.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with DotArai Co., Ltd. ...The Respondent has not acquired any legitimate rights whatsoever in the disputed domain name or any name corresponding to it. The Respondent is not using the disputed domain name.
The mere registration of a domain name does not give the owner a right or a legitimate interest in the domain name itself. ...
2013-07-02 - Case Details
page 2
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”).
...The disputed domain name was registered on September 3, 2022. According to the ...
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. ...
2022-11-08 - Case Details
In the instant case, there is no evidence
to show that the Respondent had engaged in registering the domain name to prevent
the Complainant from registering the said domain name. The Respondent registered
the domain name initially because she thought it was a great domain name to
use for a web site dealing with the future. ...Therefore, based on the above, the Panel holds that the disputed domain name
was not registered or used in bad faith as mentioned in Paragraph 4(b) of the
Policy.
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Reverse Domain name hijacking is defined in Paragraph 1 of the Rules as "using
the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder
of a domain name".
...
2003-08-05 - Case Details
Respondent is Advies & Consultancy Almere of Almere, the Netherlands.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with SIDN through Hostnet B.V.
3. ...Many decisions under the Regulations have found that a domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark where the domain name incorporates the trademark in its entirety. ...
2016-06-16 - Case Details
The Respondent is Ding Wang, 000, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name. The Respondent cannot establish rights in the Domain Name as it has not made any use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. ...
2020-09-08 - Case Details
The Respondent is Total Care Pharma, Cameroon.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with New Dream Network, LLC dba DreamHost.com (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name the Complainant must prove that:
(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2020-12-07 - Case Details
The Respondent is Domain Administrator, DVLPMNT MARKETING, INC., Saint Kitts and Nevis.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with DNC Holdings, Inc. ...The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not authorized to use the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and the Domain Name is not the trade name or company name of the Respondent. The Respondent cannot establish rights in the Domain Name, as it has not made any use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. ...
2021-06-10 - Case Details
On or about August 4, 2009 the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. At least as early as September 16, 2009 the disputed domain name was used as the URL for a website headed “Dockwisesgroup Ltd Bermuda”. ...The Respondent registered the domain name despite having no rights in the DOCKWISE trademark, which preceded the domain name registration, and without the permission of the Complainant. ...
2009-11-06 - Case Details
Respondent is Vladimir Dasevskij of Utena, Lithuania.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Mesh Digital Limited (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Given the content provided at the website under the Domain Name, the Panel has no difficulty concluding that Respondent very likely had the GAYDAR mark in mind at the time he registered the Domain Name. ...
2013-12-27 - Case Details
- Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith because, on or about November 15, 1999, Respondent sent Complainant an e-mail offering to sell the domain name to Complainant.
6. ...This domain name is identical to Complainant’s service mark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in this domain name, and Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith.
...
2000-09-29 - Case Details
Respondent is William Vaughan, smtm investments ltd, Australia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with InnerWise, Inc. d/b/a ItsYourDomain.com.
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”).
...
2008-03-10 - Case Details
The Respondent is Hsiu Chin Kuo, Taichung, Taiwan, Province of China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <77sands.com> (the “Domain Name”)
is registered with Network Solutions, LLC.
3. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name is identical to Complainant’s trademark except for the addition of the numbers “77” at the beginning of the domain name. ...
2007-01-26 - Case Details
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. ...The Domain Name was registered on November 24, 2017. The Domain Name does not currently resolve to an active website. ...
2018-04-25 - Case Details
The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc. (Name.com LLC) (the "Registrar").
3. ...The disputed domain name was registered on July 24, 2017. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website.
5. ...
2017-10-11 - Case Details
The Respondent is Uconnect Marketing Management of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates,
internally-represented.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the "Domain Name") is registered with AE Domain Administration (.aeDA).
3. ...The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the UAE Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy - UAE DRP approved by .aeDA (the "Policy"), the Rules for UAE Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy - UAE DRP (the "Rules"), and the Supplemental Rules for UAE Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy - UAE DRP (the "Supplemental Rules").
...
2018-07-16 - Case Details
The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Above.com, Inc.
3. ...The trademark registration of Complainant has been issued prior to the registration of the Domain Name.
The Domain Name was registered on May 27, 2009.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. ...
2012-09-13 - 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”).
...There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Names or any similar name. Nor is the Respondent making a noncommercial use of the Domain Names.
...
2014-08-13 - Case Details
The Respondent is Web Address Inc, Williams Makinde of Marlyland, United States of America (“USA”) / Whoisguard Protected, Whoisguard, Inc. of Panama.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with eNom, Inc. ...The Complainant alleges that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant draws attention to the indication in the Internic WhoIs database entry for the Domain Name that the name server has been blocked due to phishing.
...
2017-01-16 - Case Details