Ltd. of Kowloon, Hong Kong, China, represented by The Muscovitch Law Firm, Canada.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Moniker Online Services, LLC.
3. ...The Panel notes the definition of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking under the UDRP Rules as “using the UDRP in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name.” ...
2012-10-12 - Case Details
However, the Respondent registered the Domain Name in 1995 over twenty years ago and has used the Domain Name continuously since 1995 including for its corporate web site. ...It has also explained how its former name was represented by the initials CAGI and has given a reasonable explanation as to why the Domain Name was registered and it was commonly known by the Domain Name. ...
2018-04-23 - Case Details
The Respondent is Mai Quy Cuong, BPT Viet Nam of Hanoi, Viet Nam.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed 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").
...
2014-08-20 - Case Details
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 Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Supplemental Rules").
...AEG was founded 1887 in Germany and is a producer of electrical engineering in consumer products.
The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on June 19, 2014. The disputed domain name is currently inactive.
5. ...
2016-04-11 - Case Details
The Respondent is Min Cai of Jingzhou, Hunan, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Bizcn.com, Inc. ...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”).
...
2012-12-24 - Case Details
The Respondent is Private Registration / WhoisGuardService.com of Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Nanjing Imperiosus Technology Co. ...The Respondent is the registrant of the disputed domain name . The disputed domain name was registered on April 19, 2013. The website at the disputed domain name advertises in English the sale of “Cheap Generic Accutane”.
5. ...
2014-02-03 - Case Details
The Respondent is Private Registration / WhoisGuardService.com of Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Nanjing Imperiosus Technology Co. ...The Respondent is the registrant of the disputed domain name . The disputed domain name was registered on May 7, 2013. The website at the disputed domain name advertises in English the sale of “Accutane (Generic)”.
5. ...
2014-02-03 - Case Details
The Respondent is Private Registration / WhoisGuardService.com of Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Nanjing Imperiosus Technology Co. ...The Respondent is the registrant of the disputed domain name . The disputed domain name was registered on May 21, 2013. The website at the disputed domain name advertises in English the sale of “Accutane Online”.
5. ...
2014-02-03 - Case Details
The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Cgjacamp (the “Registrar”).
3. ...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”).
...
2013-09-02 - Case Details
Respondent is Leon van Engelen, L&L Europe Limited of Sliema, Malta, represented by Kneppelhout & Korthals N.V., Netherlands.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Complainant registered this domain name on February 22, 2006, but it is not clear from the record when Complainant began to use this domain name for a website to offer gambling services.
...
2015-02-12 - Case Details
The Respondent is Whois Privacy Services Pty Ltd. / Domain Hostmaster, Protopixel Pty Ltd of Fortitude Valley, Queensland, Australia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Fabulous.com (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”).
...
2017-01-09 - Case Details
The Respondent is Parsian Tuv Sarira, Iran (Islamic Republic of).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with IRNIC.
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 or is being used in bad faith.
...
2023-02-10 - Case Details
The Respondent is Joe Shamji of London, the United Kingdom.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with One.com A/S (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Domain Name therefore is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s prior trademark E LECLERC.
The Respondent has no link with the Complainant and is not commonly known by the Domain Name. ...
2019-01-23 - Case Details
The Respondent is See PrivacyGuardian.org of Phoenix, Arizona, United States of America (“United States”) / Dorota Borowska of Chicopee, Massachusetts, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameSilo, 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.
...
2019-04-26 - 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”).
...Such use of the disputed domain name clearly constitutes use in bad faith. The Panel infers that the disputed domain name was registered with this purpose in mind, and therefore concludes that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
7. ...
2020-10-01 - Case Details
The Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc., Panama / Hoshyar Marshall, United Kingdom.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by the Domain Name and is not authorised by the Complainant.
The Domain Name does not resolve to an active site, but is designed to deceive and has been flagged as a security risk for phishing and/or malware.
...
2021-03-22 - Case Details
The Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc., Panama / Feel Like, United Kingdom.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (“the Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by the Domain Name and is not authorised by the Complainant.
The Domain Name does not resolve to an active site, but is designed to deceive and has been flagged as a security risk for phishing and/or malware.
...
2021-03-22 - Case Details
The Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc., Panama / Sha Besn, United Kingdom.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (“the Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by the Domain Name and is not authorised by the Complainant.
The Domain Name does not resolve to an active site, but is designed to deceive and has been flagged as a security risk for phishing and/or malware.
...
2021-03-22 - Case Details
Respondent is Vago BV of Sittard, Netherlands.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Key-Systems GmbH dba domaindiscount24.com.
3. ...Many UDRP decisions have found that a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark where the disputed domain name incorporates the complainant’s trademark in its entirety.
...
2011-10-17 - 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 name was registered on July 8, 2008.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant contends in the Complaint that:
- The disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
- The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
- The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2011-08-10 - Case Details