The Respondent is 张辉 (zhang hui), China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Alibaba Cloud
Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) (the “Registrar”).
3. ...- The FRIDA Trademarks predate the registration of the Disputed Domain Name, and the Respondent
has never been authorized by the Complainant to register the Disputed Domain Name...
2026-05-13 - 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”).
...It is well accepted by UDRP panels that a generic Top-level-Domain (“gTLD”), such as “.com”, is typically
ignored when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusing similar to a trademark. ...
2023-02-23 - Case Details
Respondent is Sangwoo Cha, of Taegu, Republic of Korea.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Address Creation, United States of America.
3. ...Rights or legitimate interests in the domain name
Complainant first submits that the adoption, use and registration of the "VIAGRA" trademark and the registration of the domain name both precede the acquisition by Respondent of the domain name at issue on November 20, 2002. ...
2003-06-25 - Case Details
Het feit dat de Verweerder actief de Eiser heeft benaderd over de verkoop (tegen een hoge prijs) van de onderhavige domeinnaam, die de Verweerder bovendien als generiek kwalificeert, en de omzetting van het domeinnaamhouderschap van de Verweerders eenmanszaak naar hem in privé terwijl hij in gesprek was met de Eiser, roepen mogelijk vragen op, die echter op basis van het aan de Geschillenbeslechter voorliggende dossier niet kunnen worden beantwoord.
8. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
De Verweerder voert tenslotte aan dat de Eiser door zijn handelwijze misbruik maakt van de Regeling en zich derhalve schuldig maakt aan Reverse Domain Name Hijacking zoals bedoeld in artikel 1 van de Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP” of “Policy”), die reverse domain name hijacking definieert als “using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name.” De Regeling is echter niet identiek aan de UDRP en kent geen regeling voor reverse domain name hijacking (zie onder meer Koen Konings h.o.d.n. ZENN v. Zenn,
WIPO Zaaknr. DNL2013-0060 en Stichting RTV NH, t.h.o.d.n. ...
2022-02-18 - Case Details
Because an ampersand is not allowable in a domain name, the disputed domain name is as close as is possible to the Complainant’s trademark.
The Complainant says also that it operates the domain name , which was registered on January 17, 2011.
...The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
The Respondent denies the Complaint and asserts Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH). ...
2019-05-07 - Case Details
Respondent argues that it has not registered or used the disputed domain name in bad faith as Respondent did not register the disputed domain name to sell or rent it to Complainant for profit or to prevent Complainant from reflecting its mark in a corresponding domain name. ...D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Respondent has requested that the Panel make a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking in this proceeding. ...
2020-05-07 - Case Details
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Respondent submits that Complainant has engaged in reverse domain name hijacking. ...Reverse domain name hijacking is defined in paragraph 1 of the Rules as "using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name."
...
2014-08-20 - 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”).
...Thirdly, according to Complainant, Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Complainant argues that Respondent was an employee of Complainant responsible for managing the disputed domain name and that it has registered the disputed domain name in Respondent’s name without the prior knowledge or approval of Complainant.
...
2011-03-23 - Case Details
The Respondent is Yinglang Hua of Los Angeles, California, United States of America.
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”).
...
2014-01-09 - Case Details
The Respondent is Oleh Desiatov, Ukraine.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with 101domain GRS Limited (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which the Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Disputed Domain Name at issue in this case:
“(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in the which the complainant has rights;
(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.”
...
2020-01-27 - Case Details
The Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, United States / Konstantinos, Greece.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which it has rights, that the 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.
...
2021-05-07 - Case Details
The Respondent is George Morina of London, UK.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name, (the "Domain Name"), is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC. ...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").
...
2015-05-08 - Case Details
The Respondent is WhoisGuard, Inc. of Panama, Panama / Stayu Kasabov of Sofia, Bulgaria, self-represented.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with eNom (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its CALVIN KLEIN trademarks, 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 paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
...
2016-02-10 - 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 Respondents have not been commonly known by the Domain Name, and that the Respondents have no history of using the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. ...
2017-04-18 - Case Details
The Respondent is Lonetta Janke, Lite LLC, Lake City, United States of America ("United States").
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the "Domain Name") is registered with Tucows Inc. ...The Complainant has evidenced that the Domain Name has been used to facilitate phishing attacks to the Complainant's employees. The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name with the intention of confusing Internet users into believing that the Domain Name is associated with the Complainant. ...
2018-02-14 - Case Details
The Respondent is 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.
...
2023-04-06 - Case Details
The Respondent is Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Nukak Asanansi, Nigeria.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...As the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s NORTHERN TRUST trademark, it is self evident that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, and the Panel so finds. ...
2021-09-14 - Case Details
The Respondent is Barry Friedman of Santa Monica, California, 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. ...Rather, it is evident that the Respondent’s sole intent is to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant.
The Complainants requests the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant.
...
2019-05-15 - Case Details
The Respondent is Whoisguard Inc. / Mladen Baralic, the United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...There is no evidence that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name as a trademark or acquired unregistered rights. The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name is clearly not bona fide.
...
2019-07-23 - Case Details
The Respondent is Sarah Hampton, United States of America (“United States”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Domain Name was registered on August 1, 2020. At the time of filing the Complaint, and the time of drafting the decision, the Domain Name resolved to a website on which the Domain Name was offered for sale.
5. ...
2020-12-04 - Case Details