case=D2012-2525
page 6
having acquired rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name within the meaning of Policy
paragraph 4(c)(ii). See Moncler S.p.A. v. Bestinfo, WIPO Case No. ...case=D2020-0294
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
EE Holding Group LLC v. Oliver jack
Case No. D2026-2190
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2026-07-21 - Case Details
Ronan Laster, WIPO Case No. D2017-2167; Trip.com, Inc. v.
Daniel Deamone, WIPO Case No. D2001-1066.
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s AVERITT Mark in its entirety and adds the term
“container”. ...case=D2020-2741
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Averitt Express, Inc v. Averitt Container
Case No. D2024-3417
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2024-10-23 - Case Details
Lianxin Zhou, WIPO Case No. D2024-1160; and Carrefour SA v. yuri eros, יינות ביתן בע”מ ,WIPO Case No.
D2022-1277.
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s LINCOLN ELECTRIC Mark in its entirety followed by
the appended term “ciom” and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. ...case=D2017-0246
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Lincoln Global, Inc., The Lincoln Electric Company v. Gearge Denn
Case No. D2025-0931
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2025-05-22 - 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 LIMA ONE trademark. ...case=D2022-4158
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Lima One Capital v. taewoo choi
Case No. D2026-1970
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2026-07-07 - Case Details
D2021-0609; Fenix International Limited v. Whois
Privacy, Private by Design LLC / Irina Guerrant, WIPO Case No. D2022-0221.
The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) of a disputed domain name, in this case “.com”, is disregarded for
the purposes of assessment under the first element. ...There is no evidence that the Respondent has
conducted any bona fide business under the disputed domain name or is commonly known by the disputed
domain name. Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., WIPO Case No. ...
2023-08-01 - Case Details
case=D2014-1875
page 5
then Respondent cannot be regarded as having acquired rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed
domain name within the meaning of Policy paragraph 4(c)(ii). See Moncler S.p.A. v. Bestinfo, WIPO Case
No. ...case=D2020-0294
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Dansko, LLC v. Marin Andre
Case No. D2025-3028
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2025-10-02 - Case Details
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name
incorporate its trademarks PULTE and PULTEGROUP in its entirety. The Complainant refers in this context to
Milliman, Inc v. ...The Complainant is convinced that such a behavior cannot be considered as legitimate noncommercial or
fair use of the disputed domain name and refers in this context to PN II, Inc. v. Rolland tate, fentress, WIPO
Case No. D2025-0914, PN II, Inc. v. ...
2025-08-26 - Case Details
The Complainant submits
that the non-use of a domain name is not a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. In
this regard the Complainant relies on AB Electrolux v. ...D2016-1302, and Meta Platforms, Inc v.
Chirdon Mohamed Houssein, WIPO Case No. D2022-1156.
The Complaint contends that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. ...
2025-03-24 - Case Details
See Sportswear Company S.P.A. v. Tang Hong, WIPO Case
No. D2014-1875.
Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy also directs an examination of the facts to determine whether a respondent
has rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. ...Austin
Sole Panelist
Date: May 15, 2025
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Haemonetics Corporation v. Paul Wallace
Case No. D2025-1024
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2025-05-23 - Case Details
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. See also Oki Data
Ams., Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903. The addition of the gTLD “.com” is irrelevant in
determining whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar. ...Prior UDRP panels have held that the inactive status of a disputed
domain name does not comprise a bona fide offering of goods or services under the Policy. See, Accenture
Global Services Limited v. ...
2025-03-06 - Case Details
In other words, it is
important to ensure fairness to the parties and the maintenance of an inexpensive and expeditious avenue
for resolving domain name disputes (Whirlpool Corporation, Whirlpool Properties, Inc. v. Hui’erpu (HK)
electrical appliance co. ...See also Bayerische
Motoren Werke AG v. (This Domain is For Sale) Joshuathan Investments, Inc., WIPO Case No.
D2002-0787.
Thus, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.
...
2025-04-15 - Case Details
See WIPO Overview 3.0,
section 1.11.1; see also L’Oréal v. Tina Smith, WIPO Case No. D2013-0820.
The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. ...case=D2021-0045
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP v. Miller, Madalyn M.
Case No. D2024-1144
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2024-06-26 - Case Details
That the incorporation of the Complainants’ CALVIN KLEIN trademarks in the disputed domain name carries
a high risk of implied affiliation (and cites Navasard Limited v. Nev Mews, WIPO Case No. ...That the Respondent’s passive use of the disputed domain name amounts to bad faith (citing Société pour
l’Oeuvre le Mémoire d’Antoine de Saint Exupéry, Sucession Saint Exupéry d’Agay v. ...
2024-07-26 - Case Details
It also cites Sanofi-Aventis v. Nevis Domains
LLC, WIPO Case No. D2006-0303. The domain name in that case was which directly related
to the Complainants PLAVIX trademark. ...case=D2016-1953
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Deckers Outdoor Corporation v. Doman Manager (Domain Manager)
Case No. D2024-1282
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. ...
2024-06-25 - Case Details
iv) The Complainant submits that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
(v) The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
...Second, it is well-established in prior UDRP decisions that where the respondent knew or should have
known of a trademark prior to registering the disputed domain name, such conduct may be, in certain
circumstances, evidence of bad faith registration. See Weetabix Limited v. ...
2024-03-18 - Case Details
Whether or not that is the case, it is settled
that the insertion of a geographical term fails to distinguish a disputed domain name from a confusingly
similar trademark. The Complainant cites Allianz SE v. IP Legal, Allianz Bank Limited, WIPO Case No.
...Inactivity of a domain name does not preclude a finding of use in bad faith. In Telstra Corporation Limited v.
Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. ...
2025-05-07 - Case Details
The Respondent is Zhong Yu, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc. ...The
Complainant further submits that the Respondent’s use of the words “smartcore”, and “flooring” in its
page 3
disputed domain name provides strong evidence of confusing similarity to the SMARTCORE trademarks. In
this regard the Complainant has relied on Pfizer, Inc. v. ...
2025-05-28 - Case Details
In addition, the
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name “www.leporcgourmetsa.com” was just canceled on
June 14, 2024 (see LE PORC GOURMET, SA / JORGE PORK MEAT, SL v. ...Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7 (see The Pink Pig SA v. ...
2024-12-26 - Case Details
page 3
(iv) The Complainant submits that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
(v) The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
...D2000-0028; and Sembcorp Industries Limited v. Hu Huan Xin, WIPO Case No. D2001-1092.
In addition, MX servers were configured on the disputed domain name, with the subsequent risk of phishing
activities, further suggesting bad faith in the use of the disputed domain name.
...
2023-08-08 - Case Details
See Moncler S.p.A. v. Bestinfo,
WIPO Case No. D2004-1049.
Most importantly, Complainant contends Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection
with a bona fide offering of goods or services because, as Complainant’s Annex 10 to the Complaint
evidence of the web page connected to the disputed domain name shows, the disputed domain name
resolved to a carefully crafted “copycat” version of Complainant’s official JUNGLE BOYS Mark website to
create a false association with Complainant. ...D2019-1215; Beam Suntory Inc. v.
Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2018-2861.
Prior UDRP panels have also held where the disputed domain name is configured in a manner to wholly
incorporate a complainant’s mark, as Complainant’s Mark is incorporated here with an additional letter, the
disputed domain name can only sensibly refer to Complainant; thus, there is no obvious possible
justification for Respondent’s selection of the disputed domain name other than registration in bad faith.
...
2024-03-11 - Case Details