Paragraph 1 of the Rules defines the “respondent” as the holder of a domain-name registration against which a complaint is initiated.
As the Registrar provided the information regarding the disputed domain name registrant before the proceedings were formally commenced (see also Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. ...see The Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc v. Contact Privacy Inc. / Nat,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0856).
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
7. ...
2012-11-01 - Case Details
Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. v. John Zuccarini, Case No. D2000-0330 (WIPO June 7, 2000), § 3 (closely misspelled domain name satisfies "confusingly similar" factor); Hewlett-Packard Co. v. ...FA00040000994454 (NAF May 30, 2000) (domain name ); Bama Rags, Inc. v. John Zuccarini, File No. FA 0003000094381 (NAF May 8, 2000) (domain name ); Hewlett-Packard Co., File No. ...
2001-01-30 - Case Details
It is also established that the addition of generic terms to a disputed domain name has little, if any, effect on a determination of confusing similarity between the domain name and the respective mark (Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. ...Tropic Web,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0624; Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0455).
The Respondent has failed to show that it has acquired any trade mark rights in respect of the disputed domain name or that the disputed domain name is used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. ...
2012-11-08 - Case Details
Identical or confusingly similar to a Trademark or Service Mark in which the Complainant has rights
Domain Names and
The test of confusing similarity under the Policy
is confined to a comparison of the disputed domain name and the trademark alone,
independent of the products for which the domain name is used or other marketing
and use factors, such as the “Sleekcraft factors” – AMF
Inc. v. ...Is therefore not conceivable that Respondent was not aware of the Complainant’s mark at the time it registered the domain name.
Respondent offered to sell the domain name for 20,000 United States dollars and the domain name on a domain name auction website for 1,500 United States dollars which is clearly an excessive amount.
...
2006-01-20 - Case Details
The Respondent is not a stranger to the UDRP, having been named as a respondent in Sanofi and Sanofi Biotechnology v. Takuya Jin,
WIPO Case No. D2016-2336, and BIOFARMA SAS v. Takuya Jin,
WIPO Case No. D2016-2523. The UDRP panels in these cases each found from the evidence that the Respondent in bad faith registered a domain name identical or confusingly similar to the complainant's mark in order to sell the domain name to the complainant at an exorbitant price.
...The Complainant points to the UDRP panel decisions in Sanofi and Sanofi Biotechnology v. Takuya Jin, supra, and BIOFARMA SAS v. Takuya Jin, supra, in which bad faith in each case was found based on the Respondent's registration of a domain name identical or confusingly similar to the complainant's mark, and the Respondent's attempt sell the domain name to the complainant at an exorbitant price.
...
2017-12-19 - Case Details
Company, Ras El-Amoud, company located in Jerusalem, Israel.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Network Solutions, Inc.
3. ...And La Redoute S.A. v. Tumay Asena,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0859 (September 19, 2001))
it has been held that the "passive holding of a domain name may be sufficient
to constitute bad faith use, taking into consideration the overall context of
Respondent’s behaviour". ...
2003-05-08 - Case Details
D2006-1113; and Britannia Building Society v. Britannia Fraud Prevention,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0505.
This is especially true where the domain name incorporates a well-known mark. ...In Guerlain S.A. v. Peikang,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0055, the panel stated “in the absence of any license or permission from the Complainant to use any of its trademarks or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating those trademarks, it is clear that no actual or bona fide or legitimate use of the domain name could be claimed by the Respondent.”
...
2012-02-28 - Case Details
This risk is
heightened by the presence of MX records, which enable the creation of email addresses associated with the
Disputed Domain Name (see, e.g., BPCE v. Domain Privacy, WIPO Case No. D2024-4681, G4S Limited v.
Zakiyullah Parkar, Sole Owner, WIPO Case No. ...case=D2023-0543
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
BPCE v. Pierre Vanbrie, Bpce
Case No. D2026-1127
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2026-05-19 - Case Details
The Respondent is Jade Henry, Germany.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...D2010-0895 and FERRARI S.p.A. v. Nathan
Joseph, WIPO Case No. D2012-0354). The other terms in the disputed domain name “world” and “abu
dhabi” were demonstrably used by the Complainant within its commercial activities, including the domain
name registration of . ...
2025-01-29 - Case Details
The Panel finds that this diverts Internet traffic from the Complainant’s websites, contrary to the Policy.
The disputed domain name is currently inactive. Previous UDRP panels have found that passive holding of a disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith (Cleveland Browns Football Company LLC v. ...The registrant of responded to the Complainant’s cease and desist letter on May 9, 2012 with an offer to sell said domain name. The offer to sell was also put to the Center in an email of January 11, 2013. Previous UDRP panels have made a finding that offers to sell the disputed domain name constituted evidence of bad faith (Research in Motion Limited v. ...
2013-02-06 - Case Details
The cases cited by Complainants on this point are persuasive. Donna Karen Studio v. Donn,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0587 (domain name was registered in bad faith where Respondent had no rights to name and “should have known of Complainant's [DKNY] mark given its widespread use and notoriety”); Chanel, Inc. v. ...In a case where the complainant's trademark registration preceded the respondent's domain name registration , respondent was presumed to have notice of the trademark. See Kate Spade, LLC v. ...
2010-04-28 - Case Details
D2018-0100; and Sanofi v. Yangkai,
WIPO Case No. D2018-0054).
The Domain Name was registered on February 7, 2018. ...Previous UDRP panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding (see, among others, Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2018-08-15 - Case Details
It has long been held that omission of a letter is irrelevant to the determination of whether the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark. See, e.g., Mariott International, Inc. v Seocho, NAF Claim No. ...See, e.g., Telstra Corporation v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. This case follows that line. This Panel finds that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith under Paragraph 4(b)(iii).
...
2013-03-15 - Case Details
Scope of the Policy
The Policy is addressed to resolving disputes concerning allegations of abusive domain name registration and use. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation v. Bay Verte Machinery, Inc. d/b/a The Power Tool Store,
WIPO Case No. ...Thus, the view is that the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with evidence of a right or legitimate interest in the domain name, once the complainant has made a prima facie showing. See, e.g., Document Technologies, Inc. v. ...
2019-11-04 - Case Details
See Fondation Le Corbusier v. Monsieur Bernard Weber, Madame Heidi Weber, WIPO
https://www.wipo.int/en/web/amc/domain-name-disputes/overview/index
https://www.wipo.int/en/web/amc/domain-name-disputes/overview/index
https://www.wipo.int/en/web/amc/domain-name-disputes/overview/index
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?...case=D2002-0201
https://www.wipo.int/en/web/amc/domain-name-disputes/overview/index
page 4
Case No. D2003-0251; see also Fat Face Holdings Limited v. ...
2026-09-07 - Case Details
Finally, inactive or passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name by the Respondent does not prevent a
finding of bad faith. See Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. and Les Publications Condé Nast S.A. v.
...case=D2000-0574
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
eMazzanti Technologies v. collis lola
Case No. D2025-3764
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2025-11-05 - Case Details
See e.g., Ageas SA/NV v. Tri Nguy\u1ec5n [Tri Nguyễn],
WIPO Case No.
D2020-1632 (“The addition of a gTLD such as “.online”, “.vip”, or “.xyz” in a domain name is technically required. ...Furthermore, a request for at least EUR 10,000 for handing over the disputed domain name is to be considered well in excess of the out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name as evidenced in several cases, such as Osram Sylvania, Inc. v. iLighting Solutions Inc.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-06-15 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Thus, the Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Name constitutes bad faith registration and use under the Policy, and the Complainant requests transfer of the Domain Name.
...The Panel also finds that even though the Domain Name currently resolves to an inactive page, this does not preclude a finding of registration and use in bad faith where: “[…] it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate” (SeeTelstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2021-11-16 - Case Details
EAuto, L.L.C. v. Triple S. Auto Parts d/b/a Kung Fu Yea Enterprises, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0047. This similarity is established whenever a mark is incorporated in its entirety, regardless of other terms added to the domain name. ...Sermo, Inc. v. CatalystMD, LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0647. Thus, as the domain name incorporates the entirety of Complainant’s mark, it is sufficiently similar to be confusingly similar to that mark.
...
2008-07-29 - Case Details
The Respondent is Vinay kumar, airbussas.net, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC (the
“Registrar”).
3. ...See LEGO Juris A/S v. Tim
Andersson, Lego World, WIPO Case No. D2024-4902.
Considering that the disputed domain name resolves to a webpage which is under construction the record
does not support a bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain name within the meaning of
paragraphs 4(c)(i) and (iii) of the Policy.
...
2026-09-01 - Case Details