Respondent is WhoisGuard, Inc., Panama / Michael Anderson, Como, United States (hereinafter “Respondent”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Complaint, Annex 4. Complainant is also the registrant of the domain name , which Complainant registered on July 23, 1994. Complaint, Annex 5.
The disputed domain name was registered on November 15, 2019. ...
2020-11-12 - Case Details
The Respondent is Zhuhai Yingxun Keji Limited of Zhuhai, Guangdong, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Eranet International Limited (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.
...
2019-05-22 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark and domain name. Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the disputed domain name. ...Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name differs from Complainant’s legitimate domain name and its common law and registered trademark AKERMAN by only one letter: Respondent changed the final “n” to an “m” and registered the disputed domain name . ...
2021-06-15 - Case Details
The Respondent is Chen Yan Hua of Shanghai, the People’s Republic of China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Moniker Online Services, LLC.
3. ...The Respondent has nothing to do with the Complainant, has not been authorized by the Complainant to use the disputed domain name, the disputed domain name does not correspond to the name of the Respondent and there is no fair or noncommercial use of the domain name.
...
2011-06-08 - Case Details
Respondent is Frank Reyneke of Sneek, Netherlands.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (hereafter: the “Domain Name”) is registered with eNom.
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”).
...
2012-05-31 - Case Details
The Respondent is Blue Racer Pty Ltd of Subiaco, Australia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PlanetDomain Pty Ltd.
3. ...The Complainant contends the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith as the Respondent would have had knowledge of the well-known international trademark and name RICHARD MILLE and the numerous domain name registrations corresponding to that trademark and name. ...
2010-05-18 - Case Details
The Respondent is Yi Liu of Oslo, Norway.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Complainant is of the opinion that the disputed domain name is identical to the above-cited trademarks, company name and domain names consisting in whole or in part of the word “clarins”. ...
2014-02-11 - Case Details
The Respondent is See PrivacyGuardian.org, United States of America (“United States”) / Ogred Op Hjkla, Malaysia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Complainant previously held the Domain Name from February 15, 2015 until March 31, 2021.
The Domain Name was registered by the Respondent on May 7, 2021. ...
2021-09-07 - Case Details
The Respondent is Mikael Andersen, Norway.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Ascio Technologies Inc. ...According to the Complainant, the Respondent registered the Domain Name on October 24, 2019. At the time of drafting the Decision, the Domain Name resolved to an error page.
5. ...
2020-01-29 - 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 Disputed Domain Names were registered either by EMG or by its current name Graf Computers. Respondent appears to allege that the Disputed Domain Names were never owned by Complainant.
...
2010-02-25 - Case Details
The Complainant asked the Respondent what right the Respondent had to use the sanlam name as a ".Com" domain name; and what the Respondent’s intended purpose was for the use of the "sanlam.com" domain name. ...See the New Zealand case of Polaroid Corporation v. Hannaford and Burton [1975] 1 NZLR 566 at p. 571. The registration of the domain name similar to the Pick ‘n Pay mark puts the matter beyond doubt. ...
2000-10-13 - Case Details
Customer 1248262377, Canada / Sandra S, Johnson, Canada.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (‘the Domain Name’) is registered with Google LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...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”).
...
2021-03-02 - 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 is not making any legitimate fair use of the disputed domain name. It is only offering the disputed domain name for sale, inviting minimum bids of USD 5,000.
...
2017-12-01 - 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”).
...It submits that using a domain name for any of these purposes amounts to bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
B. ...
2021-07-29 - Case Details
Respondents are Alan Phelps, Armex UK Ltd/Enfield Sports Ltd., UK.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Paragon Internet Group Ltd t/a Paragon Names (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The UMAREX mark is the dominant feature in the Domain Name, clearly recognizable within it. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7 (“This test typically involves a side-by-side comparison of the domain name and the textual components of the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name”) and section 1.8; see also, Accenture Global Services Limited v. ...
2019-10-17 - Case Details
The Respondent is beats, Republic of Korea.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Megazone Corp., dba HOSTING.KR (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Further, the Respondent’s offer to sell the disputed domain name and its use of the disputed domain name for Sedo parking, without additional supporting factors, do not necessarily indicate bad faith here. ...
2019-07-22 - Case Details
Respondent is Brad Dassow, Custom By Design LLC, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the
“Registrar”).
3. ...The entirety of the FACEBOOK mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the
disputed domain name is confusingly similar to that mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2026-01-09 - Case Details
The Respondent is Justin Wong, United States of America (“United States”), self-represented.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Lothian
Sole Panelist
Date: June 19, 2026
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
HAS Otyan GmbH v. Justin Wong
Case No. D2026-1909
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2026-06-25 - Case Details
The Respondent is Epsilon production worldwilde LLC of United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name, (the “Domain Name”), is registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc. ...The Complainant's main website is connected to its domain name, , a website which it claims to have operated since 1997.
The Domain Name was registered on July 18, 2008, in the name of Domains By Proxy, Inc. ...
2008-10-10 - Case Details
The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Rules define Reverse Domain Name Hijacking as “using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name.”
...
2021-08-23 - Case Details