The Respondent is Bizbort solution, bizbort, Nigeria.
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 the Complainant’s INVITATION HOMES registered trade mark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2021-05-03 - 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”).
...The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Respondent’s name does not resemble the disputed domain name.
The Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a website featuring links to third-party websites. ...
2021-05-31 - Case Details
The Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, United States / domain admin, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Domain Name is set up to reach a landing page offering the Domain Name for sale for USD 990, a sum in excess of the costs of registration. ...
2021-05-31 - Case Details
The Center verified that the Complaint together with 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 regards the disputed domain name Panels have found that the non-use of a
domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. ...
2024-05-28 - 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”).
...It is the view of the Panel that the content of the disputed domain names was designed to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s MILIPOL name and MP MILIPOL trademark and MILIPOL domain names, as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation and/or endorsement of the and website.
...
2012-05-02 - Case Details
The Respondent is Parth Amin, CEO, Centenarians Life Sciences Pvt Ltd, India, represented by Fidus Law
Chambers, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Center verif ied that the Complaint satisf ied 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”).
...
2025-05-22 - 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 regards the disputed domain name Panels have found that the non-use of a domain
name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. ...
2024-10-18 - Case Details
The Respondent is Gateway, Paisa of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. ...Here, relevant circumstances are that (1) PaisaPay / PAISAPAY appears to have been a widely known trademark in India by October 2006 when the disputed domain name was first registered; (2) the Respondent has failed to submit a Response to this Complaint (other than Mr Subhash’s email of January 12, 2011) and (3) the impossibility of conceiving a good faith use of the disputed domain name; see, Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2011-02-17 - Case Details
The Respondent is Miranda Nyenhuis of kaduna, Nigeria.
2. 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. ...Transposing two letters and adding a dictionary word and a gTLD does not distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's MINERVA mark which is the distinctive component of the Domain Name.
...
2018-06-04 - Case Details
The Respondent is Henry Chan, of Nassau, Bahamas.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with iHoldings.com
Inc. d/b/a DotRegistrar.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").
...
2004-04-26 - Case Details
The Respondent is Nikolai P. Golovenkov, Ukraine.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name () is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the
“Registrar”).
3. ...However, Nikolai Pavlov is a very common name.
The Respondent does have domain names for sale, but he has never offered to sell the disputed domain
name to the Complainant. ...
2023-10-09 - Case Details
The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Above.com, Inc. (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Complainant
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is 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.
...
2017-07-07 - Case Details
The Respondent is Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States / Soufeel Jewelry Limited, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The Domain Name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC
(the “Registrar”).
3. ...Discussion and Findings
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.
...
2022-09-29 - Case Details
The Respondent is Mohammed Arshad, CelebLook, United Kingdom.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Paragon Internet Group Ltd t/a Paragon Names (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”).
...
2020-10-27 - Case Details
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, and, inter alia, is being used in bad faith in connection with a website offering the disputed domain name for sale for an amount greatly in excess of the out-of-pocket expenses in registering the disputed domain name.
...It is well-established in prior decisions under the Policy that the offer for sale of a disputed domain name found to be similar to a complainant’s trademark in connection with a website offering the disputed domain name for sale, for an amount greatly in excess of the respondent’s out-out-of-pocket costs in registering the disputed domain name, constitutes use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. ...
2019-10-17 - Case Details
The Respondent is Uttara Group Of Company Limited, Nigeria.
2. 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. ...Since the Domain Name is virtually identical to the Complainant’s famous name and the Mark, the Panel cannot conceive of any legitimate use to which the Respondent could put the Domain Name.
...
2019-09-11 - Case Details
The Respondent is AD Solution Digital Marketing, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <2019ash.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Respondent has no prior rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use the ASH trademarks, register a domain name containing them or operate the website located at the disputed domain name. ...
2019-10-07 - 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 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 [1199081]: Privacy Locked LLC of Fort Bragg, California, US.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Moniker Online Services, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel concludes that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. A legitimate interest in a disputed domain name can be demonstrated by a respondent through a showing of (i) a bona fide offering of goods or services, (ii) the respondent being commonly known by the disputed domain name, or (iii) the disputed domain name being used for legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. ...
2014-01-15 - Case Details
The Respondent is Eric Bilunov c/o Dynadot Privacy of San Mateo, California, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the "Domain Name") is registered with Dynadot, 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").
...
2014-06-03 - Case Details