The Respondent is Wilfried Tokponto, Benin.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Ascio Technologies Inc. ...See Banco Bradesco S.A. v. Fernando Camacho Bohm,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1552. The Panel thus concludes that the Respondent has registered and was using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.
...
2021-12-09 - Case Details
See, Longs Drug Stores California, Inc. v. Shep Dog, WIPO
Case No. D2004-1069 (finding typosquatting to be evidence of bad faith domain name registration); Lexar
Media, Inc. v. ...See, e.g., Ropes & Gray LLP v. Onso Onso,
WIPO Case No. D2019-0822 concerning the domain name . As the panel stated therein:
“Moreover, the use of the domain name to illegally spoof and phish existing clients of the Complainant into
believing that they are authorized to receive funds on behalf of client is a violation of Policy, paragraph
4(b)(iv). ...
2022-12-28 - Case Details
A. of Gravesend, UK, self-represented.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Mesh Digital Limited (the "Registrar").
3. ...The disputed domain name was registered on September 23, 2014. On October 21, 2014 the disputed domain name resolved to a parking page indicating that the disputed domain name had been suspended. ...
2015-02-17 - Case Details
Moreover, the Complainant affirms that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since it has not been authorised by the Complainant to reserve the disputed domain name or to register and/or use its trademark within the disputed domain name and it is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
...The addition of the word “servicos” does not therefore prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
It is also well accepted that a generic Top-Level Domain suffix, in this case “.com”, may be ignored when assessing the similarity between a trademark and a domain name (see, e.g., VAT Holding AG v Vat.com,
WIPO Case No. ...
2013-11-12 - Case Details
The Respondent is Ma John of Beijing, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with eName Technology Co., Ltd. ...See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0003.) The present case falls into such appropriate circumstances where the disputed domain name is inactive, and no use is made by the Respondent since the disputed domain name was registered and the Respondent failed to provide with a reasonable explanation for registering and using the dispute domain name.
...
2016-12-08 - Case Details
Roho" is identical to ROHO. The use of the top level of the
domain name "com" does not change the identical nature of the mark.
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Dionne Lamb, FA0106000097644 (Nat. ...Little Six, Inc. v. Domain for Sale, FA 96967 (Nat. Arb. Forum April 30, 2001), (offer to sell name for $1,000 was evidence of bad faith).
...
2002-01-15 - Case Details
D2009-0434 (same); Weight Watchers International Inc. v. Kevin Anthony,
WIPO Case No. D2011-2067 (same).
Finally, the addition of a gTLD such as “.org” after a domain name is technically required. Thus, it is well established that such element may be disregarded when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. Proactiva Medio Ambiente, S.A. v. Proactiva,
WIPO Case No. ...
2014-01-13 - Case Details
Rather, the Panel’s task is to adjudicate whether a complainant has shown entitlement to
transfer or cancellation under the specific, contract-based terms of the Policy. The UDRP is not a general
domain name policy and is not designed to resolve all disputes in the domain name system. The
Thread.com, LLC v. ...This principle frequently is invoked in
cases such as this, in which former partners battle over a domain name that was registered at a time of
harmony, but is now a pawn in the parties’ disharmony. SAGE Development Authority v. ...
2025-12-24 - Case Details
The Respondent is VVNW Inc., Bellingham, Washington, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with eNom.
3. ...D2002-0625; ACCOR v. Aurum Hotelbetriebsges mbH, WIPO
Case No. D2003-0547.
To make out a successful Complaint, it is the Complainant’s burden to prove under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy that
(i) the domain name at issue is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or a service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) 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.
...
2005-03-31 - Case Details
The Respondent is High Traffic Pro-Life Domains only $999, Pro-Life Domains
Inc., United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with
eNom.
3. ...See,
e.g., Briggs & Stratton Corporation v. Suresource, WIPO
Case No. D2000-1582 (March 29, 2001).
The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s mark within the meaning of paragraph
4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2003-07-14 - Case Details
The Respondent is Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft CNR of Granby & Sharpe St. of Kingstown, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Network Solutions, LLC.
3. ...The Panel finds that under the circumstances the use of the Domain Name merely for a PPC page which directs visitors to various third party commercial websites does not constitute a legitimate, noncommercial use of the Domain Name under the Policy, as found in Manheim Auctions Inc. v. ...
2009-10-27 - Case Details
Royal Bank
of Canada v. Chan, WIPO Case No. D2003-0031
(March 5, 2003).
In addition, Respondent offered the Domain Name for sale for $35,000, a sum
that is far in excess of the cost of registering a domain name. ...D2002-0273 (July 8, 2002); Rodale, Inc. v. Cambridge,
WIPO Case No. DBIZ2002-00153 (June 28, 2002)
(finding reverse domain name hijacking); Shopping.com v. ...
2006-03-01 - Case Details
The Panel has also taken into consideration the fact that the disputed domain name includes Latin characters and the English word "website" (Compagnie Gervais Danone v. Xiaole Zhang,
WIPO Case No. ...Complainant has therefore established a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and thereby shifts the burden to Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption (The Argento Wine Company Limited v. ...
2016-12-09 - Case Details
In light of the foregoing, the Complainant submits that it is exceedingly unlikely that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, citing Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Trasporto di Network and Pro Intel,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0246, and that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, citing Countrywide Financial Corporation v. ...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. ...
2013-09-30 - Case Details
This is particularly true if the content offered does not relate specifically to the name. See Lowen Corporation d/b/a Lowen Sign Company v. Henry Chan,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0430 (“the sole purpose behind the Respondent's registration and operation of the disputed domain name is to make money from redirected Internet traffic. There is no content that is specific to the disputed domain name (…) The use of the domain in such a way does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services giving rise to any right or legitimate interest”.) and Mattel, Inc. v. ...
2009-02-20 - Case Details
Respondent is not commonly known by this domain name nor has he sold any goods or services under this name. Neither is Respondent making any legitimate non-commercial or fair use of this domain name. ...These circumstances are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing
by Complainant of absence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed
domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden, therefore, shifts
to Respondent to show by concrete evidence that it does have rights or legitimate
interests in that name: Do The Hustle, LLC v. ...
2002-01-28 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the MNH GROUP Trademarks. The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name
is confusingly similar to this trademark. It is established that, where a mark is the distinctive part of a
disputed domain name, the disputed domain name is considered to be confusingly similar to the registered
mark (DHL Operations B.V. v. ...The Complainant has therefore established a
prima facie case that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed
Domain Name and thereby the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to produce evidence
demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name (see, for example, Do
The Hustle, LLC v. ...
2022-09-16 - Case Details
Second, Respondent replies that it has rights and legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, and that Complainant’s allegations otherwise are conclusory. Additionally, citing Comservice SA v. ...See, e.g., IUNO Advocatpartnerselskab v. Angela Croom,
WIPO Case No. D2011-0806 (July 4, 2011). Reverse domain name hijacking has also been described as occurring “where a respondent’s use of a domain name could not, under any fair interpretation of the facts, have constituted bad faith.” ...
2011-10-07 - Case Details
In the circumstances (an obvious example of typosquatting, no apparent legitimate use and not a generic or common word or phrase) the Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain name to resolve to a passive parking page is inadequate to demonstrate any legitimate rights or interests in the Disputed Domain Name Compart AG v. ...Passive holding in these circumstances may also be indicative of use in bad faith (see for example Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Caase No. D2000-0003). In the circumstances of such an obvious case of typosquatting and without any reasonable explanation for inactivity in development of the website at the Disputed Domain Name, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.
...
2010-02-05 - Case Details
The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Rebel.com Corp.
3. ...The addition of the word “shop” does not therefore prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
It is also well accepted that a top-level domain suffix, in this case “.com”, may be ignored when assessing the similarity between a mark and a domain name (see, e.g., VAT Holding AG v. ...
2012-04-12 - Case Details