The Respondent is INTDOMAIN/APEXED of Burgenland, Austria.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Missoni S.p.A. v. T.N.T. TerrificNTerry Inc.,
WIPO Case No. DWS2008-0003 (June 19, 2008).
Accordingly the Panel finds the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.
...
2015-11-19 - Case Details
As stated by the panel in Hertz System, Inc. v. Domainproxyagent.com/Compsys Domain Solutions Private Limited,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0615 “[m]anifestly, the attraction of the Domain Name to the registrants was not any right or legitimate interest in respect of the Domain Name, but its fame and attractive quality derived from the presence of the well-known name and service mark of the Complainant”.
...As stated in Oakley, Inc. v. Joel Wong/BlueHost.com- INC,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0100 “It is inconceivable […] that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without prior knowledge of the Complainant’s rights”. ...
2013-01-15 - Case Details
The Respondent is Julio Alvares, of Cusco, Peru.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The Domain Name at issue is . It has been registered with Direct Information PVT. ...With respect to the latter, it is well established that a panel is to ignore a suffix in comparing a trademark to a domain name as being simply a necessary component of a domain name indicating the nature of top level domain (see e.g., Gorstew Limited v. ...
2008-05-05 - Case Details
The Respondent is Hostmaster Hostmaster, Domain Park Limited, of Berlin, Germany.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Rebel.com Corp.
3. ...Further, the addition of descriptive or non-distinctive terms to a trademark incorporated in the domain name does not generally preclude a finding of confusing similarity. RRI Financial, Inc., v. Ray Chen, see above.
...
2009-04-27 - Case Details
The Respondent is Celso Barros, Brazil.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Hostinger, UAB (the “Registrar”).
3. ...D2015-2036 (transferring ); Nomura International Plc. v. Name Redacted,
WIPO Case No. D2021-0654. In the instant case, the disputed domain name is identical to the Mark.
...
2021-06-29 - Case Details
Uber Technologies, Inc. v. Paul Svensen,
WIPO Case No. D2020-3210 for the term “jets”).
In the light of the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...Consequently, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Panel is convinced that the Respondent also knew that the disputed domain name included the Complainant’s trademarks ACCOR when it registered the disputed domain name. Registration of a domain name which contains a third party’s trademark, in awareness of said trademark and in the absence of rights or legitimate interests is suggestive of registration in bad faith (see e.g., Charlotte Tilbury TM Limited v. ...
2021-08-27 - Case Details
The Respondent is Name Redacted.
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. ...WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.6; see Boehringer
Ingelheim International GmbH v. WhoisGuard, Inc. / Jan Kowalski, WIPO Case No. D2017-0970.
The Domain Name is also confusingly similar to the Complainant’s domain name, used for
official communications. ...
2025-09-17 - Case Details
It does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademark. See Pfizer Inc. v. Asia Ventures, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0256. ...See Unipol Gruppo Finanziario S.p.A. v. Cenk Erdogan, Trnames Domain Name Services,
WIPO Case No. D2016-1127 (transferring , where complainant’s EU trademark application for UNIPOLTOBE was filed the same day the domain was registered); Kleinwort Benson Group Limited and Société Générale v. ...
2019-06-25 - Case Details
See, e.g., B & H
Foto & Electronics Corp. v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. / Joseph Gross, WIPO Case No. D2010-0842.
Here, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ISOSTAR marks. ...See Prada S.A. v. Roberto Baggio, WIPO Case No. D2009-1187. Here Respondent created a
Domain Name that incorporated the ISOSTAR mark to capitalize on its reknown and to have the Domain
Name resolve to a pornographic website for commercial gain. ...
2023-01-13 - Case Details
As shown in Choice Courier Systems, Inc. v. William H. Kirkendale,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0483,
“In addition, the focus is not on whether the Respondent offered to sell the domain name, but whether the circumstances indicate that Respondent's primary purpose in registering the domain name was to sell it for an excessive sum. ...In order to satisfy this test, the relevant trademark would generally need to be recognizable as such within the domain name….”). As the panel explained in Red Bull GmbH v. Paul Battista,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0353 (quoting SANOFI-AVENTIS v. ...
2015-11-25 - Case Details
The Respondent is Simo Elba, Miami, Florida, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name, , is registered with Wild West
Domains, Inc.
3. ...In fact, in decisions too numerous to list, UDRP panels
have increasingly applied the objective test of confusing similarity first enunciated
in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. MacLeod, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0662 (September 19, 2000). There, the panel concluded that
“a domain name is ‘identical or confusingly similar’ to a
trademark for purposes of the Policy when the domain name includes the trademark,
or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the
domain name.”
...
2005-02-21 - Case Details
NABR, WIPO Case No. D200l-l480;
Britannia Building Society v. Britannia Fraud Prevention, WIPO
Case No. D200l-0505).
The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s trademark ZEDGE.
It is well established that the specific top level
of a domain name such as “.com”, “.org” or “.net”
does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is
identical or confusingly similar (See Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...
2007-04-02 - Case Details
See Proactiva Medio Ambiente, S.A. v. Proactiva,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0182.
Thus, the Panel concludes that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the HALLIBURTON Mark.
...See Banco Bradesco S.A. v. Fernando Camacho Bohm,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1552. Such conduct is emblematic of the Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name. ...
2017-06-16 - Case Details
It is well-established that the gTLD used as part of a domain name may be disregarded (see Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Andrew Miller,
WIPO Case No. D2008-1345). ...On any objective view, the Respondent is not a reseller with a legitimate interest in a domain name incorporating a manufacturer’s mark, such that it could meet the tests set out in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ...
2019-11-05 - Case Details
The Respondent is Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Raymond Stephen, Philippines.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (“Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...It is well-established that the gTLD used as part of a domain name is generally disregarded unless the gTLD takes on special significance where it has relevance to the analysis (see Autodesk v. ...
2021-09-07 - Case Details
See e.g. Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Rojeen Rayaneh,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0488. Nor does the addition of the generic top-level domain “.net” detract from the conclusion that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark or marks. ...See Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft v. New York TV Tickets Inc,
WIPO Case No. D2001-1314.
Accordingly, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...
2012-01-10 - Case Details
Respondent is Saeid Ahmadi, United Arab Emirates.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...case=D2022-4375
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
ArcelorMittal v. Saeid Ahmadi
Case No. DCO2025-0046
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2025-08-21 - Case Details
See Moncler S.p.A. v. Bestinfo,
WIPO Case No. D2004-1049 (“the Panel notes that the Respondent’s name is ‘Bestinfo’ and that it can therefore not be ‘commonly known by the Domain Name”).
...Therefore, bad faith use of the Domain Name has been established. See Dylos Corporation v. Yang,
WIPO Case No. D2015-1959 (finding bad faith registration and use where the website the disputed domain name resolved to mirrored the complainant’s website suggesting a desire to make commercial gain from the use of the disputed domain name and/or to defraud consumers by obtaining their credit card information); Vivid Seats Limited v. ...
2019-04-16 - Case Details
The Respondent is Robb Dobin, theflybe.com, Honolulu, Hawaii, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Active Registrar, Inc.
3. ...Previous UDRP panels have held that rights and legitimate interests cannot be created where the respondent would not choose such a domain name unless it was seeking to create an impression of association with the complainant (see Drexel University v. ...
2011-11-25 - Case Details
The disputed domain name directs visitors to a
webpage which reproduces the authentic domain name of the Complainant. ...This addition rather reinforces the
impression that the disputed domain name is associated with the Complainant or, at least, that the
Respondent unduly benefits from the Complainant’s trademarks (Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2022-10-06 - Case Details