The Respondent is European Travel Network, with an address in Miami, Florida, USA.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is "XPEDIATRAVEL.COM".
The registrar of the disputed domain name is Network Solutions, Inc., with business address in Herndon, Virginia, USA.
3. ...The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy") requires that domain name registrants submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding conducted by an approved dispute resolution service provider, of which WIPO is one, regarding allegations of abusive domain name registration (Policy, para. 4(a)). ...
2000-04-20 - 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”).
...Respondent
The Respondent is apparently a company incorporated in Hong Kong, China.
C. The Disputed Domain Name
The disputed domain names were both registered on the same date, April 28, 2014.
D. The Website at the Disputed Domain Name
The disputed domain names resolve to the same website, which at first glance appears to promote optical services under the name “Local England Global Opticians” (the “Website”).
5. ...
2014-11-19 - 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 Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s common law trademark as the disputed domain name replicates all significant elements of the mark in question.
...
2020-04-16 - Case Details
Respondent is Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., Bahamas.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Complainant states that it found the only contact information available from the website connected to the Domain Name is the email address , Accordingly, there is no information indicating that Respondent is trading under a name corresponding to the Domain Name and under such circumstances Complainant submits, Respondent cannot claim to be commonly known by the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name.
...
2020-08-03 - Case Details
The Respondent is Gheorghe Matei, Romania.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Tucows Inc. (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”).
...
2020-09-28 - Case Details
Respondent is Nerijus Abrutis, Nerijus Abrutis, Lithuania.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Tucows Inc. ...Respondent appears to have no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, given that Complainant has not authorized or permitted Respondent to register or use the Domain Name. ...
2021-10-01 - Case Details
The Respondent is Whois Privacy Protection Service by MuuMuuDomain of Fukuoka-shi, Japan /takeo nagase of Osaka-shi, Japan.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GMO Internet, Inc. d/b/a Discount-Domain.com and Onamae.com (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Complainant further contends that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, and that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
The Respondent alleges in its Response that it did not use the Domain Name in bad faith and that all products sold at the website connected to the Domain Name are authentic.
6. ...
2013-10-01 - Case Details
The Respondent is Lonxiang Shen, Import Fence Direct Inc. of Pico Rivera, California, USA.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Respondent’s company name is different from the Domain Name. The website to which the Domain Name briefly resolved, while headed with the Domain Name, did not identify the name of the Respondent or the brand name of its products. ...
2017-01-26 - Case Details
The Respondent is Lori Hoffman, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (“Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc.
...There is no evidence of
the Respondent’s using the Disputed Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name
in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. ...
2026-07-15 - Case Details
The Respondent is Huhan, Yuming Zhong of Xiamen, Fujian, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with eName Technology Co., Ltd. ...Respondent
The Respondent is apparently an individual resident in China.
C. Disputed Domain Name
The disputed domain name was registered on November 1, 1994.
D. Website at the Disputed Domain Name
The disputed domain name has not been used by the Respondent.
5. ...
2016-11-02 - 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 Vautron Rechenzentrum AG (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”).
...
2015-10-29 - Case Details
That when comparing the trademarks of the Complainant and the disputed domain name it is clear that there is a likelihood of confusion between the two.
The disputed domain name is intended to mimic the domain name under which the Complainant operates its main website.
...Moreover, since the Complainant is a Belgian company which operates its main website with the domain name the “be” in the disputed domain name contributes to create such confusion rather than to avoid it.
...
2016-12-13 - Case Details
The Respondent is Domains By Proxy, LLC of Scottsdale, Arizona / Shay Danan of Laval, Quebec, Canada.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The standing test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the trademark and the disputed domain name to determine whether the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark. The test 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 domain name. ...
2018-04-05 - Case Details
The Respondent is Mihail Pavlishin of Stebnik, Ukraine.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Dynadot, LLC.
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”).
...
2010-08-17 - Case Details
The Respondent is xcv, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Web Commerce Communications Limited
dba WebNic.cc (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. The Panel finds the mark is
recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly
similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2024-12-11 - 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").
...Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar or identical to the Trade Marks, 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.
...
2016-07-18 - Case Details
The Respondent is Armin Group of Shiraz, Islamic Republic of Iran ("Iran").
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Realtime Register B.V. ...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").
...
2016-06-06 - 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 has not been granted either a license or other authorization to use the mark IBM nor to use it as part of for the disputed domain name. Further, there is no evidence that the Respondent has bona fide actual or contemplated use of the disputed domain name. ...
2018-07-25 - Case Details
The Respondent is Narong Sangaed of Bangkok, Thailand.
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”).
...
2013-08-08 - Case Details
The Respondent is Chad Creighton, Limassol, Cyprus.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.
3. ...He even expressed the view that his domain name be “generic”. He may therefore at any point in time reactivate the domain name. Under the circumstances the current deactivation of the domain name must be considered to continue to be use in bad faith under the Policy for the purpose of the request of the Complainant that the domain name be transferred to it.
...
2009-05-11 - Case Details