Respondent is Suresh Nair, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the
“Registrar”).
3. ...Complainant contends that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona
fide offering of goods or services. It points out that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page
with PPC links and that “[t]here is no evidence of the Respondent having made any substantive use of the
Domain Name” or “any evidence of its demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name.” ...
2023-08-25 - 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 asserts that the disputed domain names currently all resolve to websites offering services in relation to Electrolux products (both at the main website and by redirecting to another domain name ), and that the Respondent is thus using the disputed domain names to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to its websites, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the websites.
...
2013-07-05 - Case Details
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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”).
...Substantive Issues
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order for the disputed domain name to be transferred:
(i) the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2016-08-26 - Case Details
King, of 77 Mowat Avenue, Suite 508, Toronto, Canada.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name upon which this complaint is based is videonet.com. The registrar of the domain name as at the date of the Complaint is Network Solutions Inc ("NSI").
3. ...In this case, the Respondent’s sole asserted current interest in the domain name in dispute is to sell it to the highest bidder, which in the opinion of the Panel (Mr Davis dissenting) is a disavowal of any current legitimate interest in the domain name. ...
2000-07-25 - 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”).
...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
As stated in many decisions rendered under the Policy (e.g. Robert Ellenbogen v. Mike Pearson,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0001) both conditions, registration and use in bad faith, must be demonstrated; consequently, the Complainants must show that:
- the disputed domain names were registered by the Respondent in bad faith, and
- the disputed domain names are being used by the Respondent in bad faith.
...
2021-12-13 - 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 Disputed Domain Names incorporate the MISS SELFRIDGE Trademark in its entirety.
The Disputed Domain Names are similar to the domain name owned by the Complainant,
.
...
2022-09-16 - 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 has made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods. The disputed domain names are not similar to the Respondent’s name, and there is no evidence that the Respondent operates any business under any name that is similar or the same to the disputed domain names.
...
2012-11-09 - Case Details
Respondent is National
Advertising, Inc., ("Respondent"), a corporation of unknown origin
with a street address at 101 South 8th Street, Philadelphia, PA,
USA.
2.The Domain Name and
Registrar
The domain name at issue
is (the "Domain Name"). The registrar is Network
Solutions, Inc. ...On March 28, 2001, the Registrar confirmed, inter alia,
that it is the registrar of the Domain Name and that the Domain Name is registered
in the Respondent’s name.
On March 28, 2001, the
Center verified the Complaint satisfies the formal requirements of the ICANN
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"), the
Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules"),
and the Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy
(the "Supplemental Rules").
...
2001-06-21 - Case Details
It owns a number of United States trademarks for WALGREENS, including no. 1057249 registered on January 25, 1977. It offers its products through the domain name, , registered on May 4, 1995.
The disputed domain name was registered on May 14, 2017. ...The gTLD is irrelevant here because it does not affect the meaning of the disputed domain name. For all these reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.
...
2017-10-10 - Case Details
The Respondent is Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Bang Napi, Indonesia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...The Complainant argues that the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark as the Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s Trademark in its entirety, with the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.online”.
...
2021-09-30 - Case Details
Cook, United States of America (“United States” or “US”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Paknic (Private) Limited (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”).
...
2020-11-18 - Case Details
The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States / Peng Zhang, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent is not known by the Domain Name or making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name within the meaning of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. ...
2020-04-14 - Case Details
The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy LLC, United States / Dalton Rismay, Canada.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...In the Panel’s view, the Domain Name is a typical example of typosquatting, whereby a domain name is registered with a minor variation of a well-known brand name with a view to taking advantage of typographical errors by Internet users. ...
2019-06-21 - Case Details
The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States of America (“United States”) / Joel Tinoco, Pixel Design Costa Rica, Costa Rica.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Complainant argues that the fact that the Domain Name currently resolves to an inactive site, does not rule out bad faith, as passive holding of a domain name may constitute bad faith. ...
2021-05-17 - Case Details
The Respondent is Mikhail Chtcheglov, Switzerland.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Hostinger, UAB (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its LEGO trademark, 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 to attract visitors and generate traffic to the website at the Domain Name.
...
2021-06-15 - Case Details
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.
Respondent is not using the disputed domain name to offer goods or services, but has instead attempted to sell the disputed domain name at internet auctions.
...Therefore, this Panel finds Complainant has demonstrated Respondent has no legitimate right or business interest in the disputed domain name.
Domain Name Registration in Bad Faith
Complainant has offered proof of three (3) instances of Respondent’s bad faith in registering the disputed domain name. ...
2000-05-04 - Case Details
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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”).
...Moreover, panels have categorically held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity
(e.g., phishing) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. ...
2023-10-30 - Case Details
Respondent is Mark Boucher of Ahmedabad, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with BigRock Solutions Pvt Ltd. ...Complainant
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is 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.
...
2017-01-27 - Case Details
The Respondent is Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States of America (“United States”) / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, Panama.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed 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 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.
...
2022-02-03 - Case Details
The Respondent is Whoisguard Inc. of Panama / Wei Zhang of Henan, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Marks, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2018-07-11 - Case Details