The Respondent is Michael Edwards, Canada.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain
name is identical to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2026-06-23 - Case Details
The Domain Name and Registrar
2.1 The disputed domain name is .
2.2 The registrar of the disputed domain names is Namesecure.com, Inc., having a mailing address of P.O. ...The Respondent is willing to transfer the domain name to Too, Inc if the Complainant would assist her in identifying an available domain name that appropriately signifies the domain name as an enthusiast Limited Too fan. ...
2001-11-23 - Case Details
Domain Names No. 2 and 4 are registered by
Respondent Alias 1, Domain Name No. 8 is registered by Respondent Alias 2 and Domain Name No. 9 is
registered by Respondent Alias 3...Further
factors including the nature of the domain name, the chosen top-level domain, any use of the domain name,
or any respondent pattern, may obviate a respondent’s claim not to have been aware of the complainant’s
mark.”
...
2025-05-09 - 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”).
...At the time the Complaint was filed, the Respondent's website also provided explicit adult entertainment content to Internet users, through various means.
The Respondent registered the domain name on January 5, 2007 and the domain name on September 16, 2008.
...
2009-03-18 - Case Details
A registrant that simply adds numerals or generic terms to the Complainant’s trademark does not avoid a finding that domain name to be confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. See, e.g., Caterpillar Inc. v. ...D2000-0275 (WIPO June 7, 2000) () (the addition of the generic word “machines” to Complainant’s trademark did not serve to distinguish domain name from mark CAT); Nike Inc. v. Farrukh Zia,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0167 (WIPO April 27, 2000) () (domain name constructed by addition of generic “e” to Complainant’s mark held to be confusingly similar to mark); NCP Marketing Group, Inc. v. ...
2010-12-16 - Case Details
Respondent is Reliance Resource Investments, of Springfield, Australia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (“Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with NameScout Corp. ...Complainant amended the Complaint on November 5, 2008, to request the remedy of transfer of the Disputed Domain Name. The Center verified that the Complaint and 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”).
...
2008-12-24 - Case Details
The Complainant is LIWE ESPAÑOLA, S.A., Spain, and the Respondent is Antonio Greco, Italy.
2. The disputed domain name is . The disputed domain name was registered on December
4, 2023.
3. The Complaint was filed in Italian on March 26, 2025, and there was no formal Response filed. ...The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name was registered and used by the Respondent in bad faith.
7. In light of the above, the Panel decides that the disputed domain name should be
transferred to the Complainant.
...
2025-05-20 - Case Details
The Respondent is Takashi Knoshita of Nagoya, Japan.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Domain.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Therefore, by using a domain name that is identical with the Complainant’s company name, the Respondent is using the disputed domain name with the intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers...
2015-08-21 - 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”).
...Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules states that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that
the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. Two disputed domain names
( and ) are registered in the name of the same domain name holder.
...
2025-07-29 - Case Details
The Respondent is Domains by Proxy, LLC of Scottsdale, Arizona, United States of America (“USA”) / Mary Sward of Lebanon, Kentucky, USA.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Wild West Domains, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Thus the Respondent used the Domain Name and its confusing similarity to the Complainant’s mark and corresponding domain name to attempt to defraud the Complainant. ...
2016-09-30 - Case Details
The Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. of Panama, Panama / Robert Jurek of Eagan, Minnesota, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...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").
...
2018-03-21 - Case Details
The Respondent is See PrivacyGuardian.org of Phoenix, Arizona, United States of America (“United States”) / Mediastack of Ha Noi, Viet Nam.
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.
...
2018-01-11 - Case Details
The Respondent is Anna Brunner, Benin.
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 SMAVA 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 within the meaning of the Policy.
...
2022-02-28 - Case Details
The Respondent is Cheng Jiu Zhang, China.
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 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.
...
2021-10-04 - Case Details
The Respondent is oscar aguillon, Mexico.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB
(the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name in
registered in the name of a privacy service.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2023-10-11 - 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”). ...Complainant
Complainant contends that (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s
trademarks; (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and
(iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...
2024-02-02 - Case Details
The Respondent is Frances Metzger of Brooklyn, New York, United States.
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 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.
...
2018-08-13 - Case Details
The Respondent is Max Neumann of Jakobsweiler, Germany.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the "Domain Name") is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Openprovider (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.
...
2018-06-07 - Case Details
The Respondent is Fred Morrill of Tequesta, Florida, United States of America (“United States”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Complainant says that this and the fact that the Respondent has not made a bona fide use of the disputed domain name points to the conclusion that the Respondent merely registered the disputed domain name to prevent the Complainant from obtaining a “.com” domain name identical to its FORCE G mark.
...
2018-11-16 - 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 clearly knew of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name, such is the renown of that trademark. This is reinforced by the webpages to which the disputed domain name resolves.
...
2019-01-10 - Case Details