The Panel finds on the record that there is therefore a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the burden is thus on the Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption (Do The Hustle, LLC 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. ...
2013-05-22 - Case Details
The Respondent is Rouger Chuk, United States of America (“US”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Hostinger Operations, UAB
(the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Complainant also demonstrated that it owns more than 5,000 domain names containing the mark LEGO,
including the domain name .
The disputed domain name was registered on April 27, 2024. ...
2025-02-27 - Case Details
The Respondent is Discount Marlboro Cigarettes, Arad, Romania.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered
with Tucows.
3. ...Such additional generic terms fail to dispel the connection between the domain
name and the trademark; indeed the term “cigarettes”, at least,
reinforces the link. See, eg, Philip Morris Inc. v. ...
2005-05-03 - Case Details
The Respondent is Janaka De Silva, Sri Lanka.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Launchpad.com Inc. ...D2020-0164; or Accenture Global Services Limited v. ICS INC. / Privacy Protect.org,
WIPO Case No. D2013-2098.
The disputed domain name was registered on November 6, 2019 by a person apparently located in Sri Lanka. ...
2020-05-04 - Case Details
The Respondent is Luke Belmar, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with
Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu (the “Registrar”).
3. ...O'Brien
Sole Panelist
Date: July 29, 2024
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Synchrony Financial v. Luke Belmar
Case No. D2024-1925
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2024-08-08 - Case Details
Respondent is Rahul kumar, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a
Registrar.eu. ...See B & H Foto &
Electronics Corp. v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. / Joseph Gross, WIPO Case No. D2010-0842. The threshold for
satisfying this first element is low and generally panels have found that fully incorporating the identical mark
in a disputed domain name is sufficient to meet this standing requirement.
...
2022-09-09 - Case Details
The Respondent is Dan frank, Timax Inc, U.S.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with eNom, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Foster
Sole Panelist
Date: July 30, 2025
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Lincoln Global, Inc., The Lincoln Electric Company v. Dan frank, Timax Inc
Case No. D2025-2337
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2025-08-06 - Case Details
The Respondent is Minha loja Admin, Loja online, Brazil.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. ...On January 20, 2025, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name
does not resolve to any active website.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. ...
2025-04-03 - Case Details
The Complainant has used ACCENTURE as its trademark for more than 20 years. The disputed domain
name was registered in the year 2022. In addition, the ACCENTURE trademark is famous (Accenture
Global Services Limited v. ...Furthermore, the
word “accenture”, is a coined term and is very distinctive (Accenture Global Services Limited v. Domain
Administrator, Fundacion Privacy Services LTD., WIPO Case No. D2022-3223).
There is no reason for the Respondent to choose and include the word “accenture” in its entirety as part of
the disputed domain name. ...
2022-12-21 - Case Details
Respondent is Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Jhon Donavan, Poland.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is which is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...D2016-0385: “the use of a privacy protection service is also an indication of bad faith attempt to conceal the Respondent’s true identity.”
6 See Twitter, Inc. v. Whois Agent, Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. / Domain Support,
WIPO Case No. D2015-1488: “the Panel accepts Complainant’s undisputed submission that bad faith registration and use of the Domain Name is further indicated by the fact that there is strong suspicion of Respondent using the Domain Name in an elaborate common phishing scam.” ...
2021-12-17 - Case Details
The Respondent is Domain Privacy, Above.com Domain Privacy, Australia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...D2020-1292; Accenture Global Services Limited v. Mark Henry,
WIPO Case No. D2020-1691, etc. Therefore, the Panel finds it highly likely that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant’s business and marks when it registered the disputed domain name.
...
2021-04-23 - Case Details
The Respondent is Kim Ku, Kimku Host, Georgia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with OwnRegistrar, Inc. ...The Complainant adds that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”)”.com” need not be taken into
consideration when examining the identity or similarity between the Complainant’s trademarks and the
disputed domain name citing Accor v. ...
2024-02-02 - Case Details
The Respondent is wlliams Bogdan, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Sav.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...In International Business Machines Corporation v. chenaibin, WIPO Case No. D2021-0339, bad faith was
demonstrated when the respondent, who had used the complainant’s trademark in its domain name, was
merely “diverting Internet users for commercial gain”.
...
2024-10-16 - Case Details
On the same date that Respondent registered the disputed domain name, it registered an almost identical domain name and used it to resolve to a web site that was apparently intended to parody Complainant and its views (see CFA Properties, Inc. v. ...Firstly, in contrast to the situation in Telstra, the disputed domain name resolves to a web page on Complainant’s own web site. Secondly, although each case needs to be decided on its own merits, it is nevertheless noteworthy that Respondent’s use of a similar domain name registered on the same date (see, CFA Properties, Inc. v. ...
2012-12-04 - Case Details
The Respondent is Chen Bao Shui of Shanghai, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with eNom.
3. ...D2002-0358; Consorzio del Formagggio Parmigiano Reggiano v. La case del Latte di Bibulic Adriano,
WIPO Case No.D2003-0661.
In May 2007, the Complainant became aware that the Respondent had registered the domain name in dispute. ...
2007-10-03 - Case Details
The Respondent seems to be an individual from Iraq.
The disputed domain name was registered on May 18, 2012.
At the time of the Complaint, the disputed domain name did not appear to resolve to any active website.
5. ...Complainant
The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.
First, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known SAUDI ARAMCO trademark.
...
2013-02-25 - Case Details
The Respondent is The EDCOMM Group, New York, United States of America, represented by David Shapp, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name ("Disputed Domain Name") is registered with Network Solutions, Inc. ...Steven Lieberman,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0814 and Digital
Vision, Ltd v. Advanced Chemill Systems, WIPO
Case No. D2001-0827).
The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in 1998, for one of its
clients who wanted to establish an on-line location for its real estate business.
...
2004-01-19 - 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”), 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 does not claim to have been known by the Domain Name or to have made legitimate noncommercial use of the Domain Name. Rather, the Respondent claims to have made use of the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services -- the business of hosting and developing websites. ...
2007-12-28 - Case Details
KG, Neckarsulm, Germany, represented by HK2 Rechtsanwälte, Germany.
1.2 The named Respondent is NetgrooveDomainService, Ibaraki, Japan.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Tucows, Toronto, Canada.
3. ...Complainant alleges that it is irrelevant if the operator of a website resolving under a disputed domain name is commonly known by the domain name. Paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy requires Respondent itself to be commonly known by the domain name. ...
2008-04-01 - Case Details
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”).
...See, regarding the omission of the apostrophe: L’Oreal v. Tracey Johnson,
WIPO Case No. D2008-1721.
The disputed domain name incorporates the second Complainant’s BIOTHERM trademark in its entirety and that trademark is the dominant element of the disputed domain name.
...
2016-05-24 - Case Details