On this point, the Complainant refers to The New York Times Company v. New
York Internet Services, WIPO Case No.
D2000-1072.
The Complainant states that Internet users who come across the domain name on the basis of an Internet search for “BEHRINGER” are deceived into thinking that the domain name leads to a website that is sponsored by, affiliated to or endorsed by the Complainant. ...In the email correspondence between the parties, the Respondent has held that his website is a discussion forum for the Complainant’s products, and that the purpose of the site was to fill the need for a discussion forum for users of the Complainant’s products.
The Respondent’s use of the domain name does not amount to legitimate
non-commercial or fair use of the domain name. As held in Tridos Bank NV
v. ...
2006-01-23 - Case Details
The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the "Disputed Domain Name") is registered with Domain.com, LLC (the "Registrar").
3. ...The Respondent has registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith, to harm the Complainant and to mislead recipients into assuming that the Disputed Domain Name belongs to the Complainant. ...
2018-08-31 - Case Details
The Respondent is WhoisGuard, Inc., Panama / Mamadou Paulo, France.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...Some time thereafter the disputed domain name redirected to the webpage of a Libanese restaurant. Finally, at present the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website.
...
2019-08-22 - Case Details
The Respondent is Kalkofnsvegur 3, Israel.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap,
Inc. ...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” 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”).
...
2025-01-21 - Case Details
Respondent is Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Fan Reap, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...In comparing Complainant’s marks with the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the disputed domain
name is confusingly similar to the INSTA mark as the trademark is clearly recognizable within the disputed
domain name. ...
2022-06-03 - Case Details
The Respondent is Ma Thien Lieu, Viet Nam.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Eranet International Limited (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The parties were involved in one previous dispute, decided in the favor of the Complainant. See Scribd, Inc. v. Ma Thien Lieu,
WIPO Case No. D2021-1077 regarding the domain name .
The disputed domain name was registered in the course of the proceedings in the case Scribd, Inc. v. ...
2021-12-27 - Case Details
The Respondent is DNS Admin, Buntai LTD, Switzerland, represented by Yarden Shaul, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Key-Systems GmbH (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Complainant states that it has not authorised the Respondent to use the disputed domain name. Nor is
the Respondent affiliated with it.
The disputed domain name is not derived from the Respondent’s name. ...
2024-03-28 - Case Details
The Respondent is equ equinor, Equinor, Nigeria.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...Also, the Respondent apparently configured
and activated MX records for the disputed domain name, which enables the Respondent to send and receive
emails using the disputed domain name (Annex I to the Complaint).
...
2023-02-10 - Case Details
The Respondent is DOMIBOT, Caracas, Venezuela.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with
BelgiumDomains, LLC.
3. ...In determining this matter, the Panel was guided by
previous WIPO Decisions. The Panel referred to eMedicine.com, Inc. v. Noble
Scientific, WIPO Case No. D2001-0146
(“the Policy only requires that the Complainant meet the test of showing
it has trademark or service mark rights in the disputed domain name. ...
2006-09-06 - Case Details
However, the Panel will accept all submissions as filed without translation.
6.2 Substantive Issues
Article 8 of the Policy provides that a complaint against a registered domain name shall be supported if the following conditions are fulfilled:
(a) the disputed domain name is identical with or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s name or mark in which the Complainant has civil rights or interests;
(b) the disputed domain name holder has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name or major part of the disputed domain name;
(c) the disputed domain name holder has registered or has been using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...As a technical requirement of domain name registration, these elements do not need to be taken into consideration in the comparison between a domain name and a trademark. ...
2021-03-23 - Case Details
The Respondent is Jian Wang, Wang Jian, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with enom646, Inc. (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Complainant submits that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to offer pornographic content constitutes “pornosquatting”. This was described in Prada SA v. ...
2021-04-06 - Case Details
In this context the Complainant reports also that previous panels (for instance, in NBC Universal Inc. v. Szk.com,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0077 and Alstom v. Domain Investments LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0287) have established that knowledge of the complainant’s Intellectual Property rights including trademarks by the respondent at the time of registration of a domain name proves also bad faith registration.
...A number of panel decisions have considered the proper course where a respondent has unilaterally consented to the transfer a domain name to a complainant (see, for instance, Deutsche Banke v. Carl Siegler,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0984, Juventus F. ...
2011-01-05 - Case Details
The Respondent is Tommy Butler of Glasgow, United Kingdom, represented by himself.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name, (the “Domain Name”), is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...[cited decisions omitted]”
One of the cited cases under this section is Madrid 2012, S.A. v. Scott Martin-MadridMan Websites (supra) relating to a collection of domain names, one of which was , a domain name registered two days before the complainant applied for registration of its “Madrid 2012” trade mark. ...
2013-01-18 - Case Details
The Respondent is Huaqing Tian of Jiaxian, Henan, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Jiangsu Bangning Science & technology Co. ...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”).
...
2012-05-04 - Case Details
The Respondent is soubick das, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
As stated in many decisions rendered under the Policy (e.g. Robert Ellenbogen v. Mike Pearson, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0001) both conditions, registration and use in bad faith, must be demonstrated;
consequently, the Complainant must show that:
- the disputed domain name is registered by the Respondent in bad faith, and
- the disputed domain name is being used by the Respondent in bad faith.
...
2025-12-05 - Case Details
The Respondent is Daniel Freewill, United States of America (“United States”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the
“Registrar”).
3. ...D2025-0507 and DPDgroup International Services GmbH & Co v. Palos Mikanos, WIPO Case No.
D2024-4948);
- The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s DPD Trademark, since it
includes the Complainant’s mark in its entirety, with the addition of the descriptive term “go” which is directly
related to the Complainant’s activity;
- The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since: (i)
the Respondent has not been authorized or somehow given consent by the Complainant to register and use
the disputed domain name, and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name; (ii) the Respondent’s
use of the disputed domain name is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use;
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?...
2025-07-04 - Case Details
Johns, Antigua, Antigua and Barbuda.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with InnerWise, Inc. d/b/a ItsYourDomain.com.
3. ...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”).
...
2008-04-09 - Case Details
The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name was registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...As discussed in Roraj Trade, LLC v. lishijie/Domain Admin, Information Privacy Protection Services
Limited (WIPO Case No. D2016-1222), the registration of a disputed domain name that is associated with a
recently announced feature indicates bad faith:
“The above, combined with the fact that the Respondent’s registration of the of disputed domain
name, which corresponds exactly to the Complainant’s soon-to-be launched product line, took place
the day after that product line was announced, leads the Panel to conclude that the disputed domain
name was registered by the Respondent in bad faith with the intent to create an impression of an
association with the Complainant and profit therefrom.”
...
2022-07-15 - Case Details
The word “global” is a generic word, and it is well established that where the distinctive and prominent element of a disputed domain name is the complainant’s mark, and the only difference is a generic term that adds no distinctive element, then such a generic term does not negate the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark (See Oakley, Inc. v. ...KG v. Pertshire Marketing, Ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0762).
The Panel notes that the Respondent has registered rights in the ROAR GLOBAL trade mark, which is identical to the Disputed Domain Name. ...
2016-10-07 - Case Details
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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”).
...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. ltd., WIPO Case No. ...
2023-05-26 - Case Details