The adornment “corp” therefore only serves to increase the potential for
confusion. See Nipro Corporation v. Proxy Protection LLC / Gianfranco Vestuto, WIPO Case No.
D2021-3070 (“The trademark NIPRO is included in its entirety in the disputed domain name. ...In terms of passive holding and its relation to legitimate interests, the Complainants refer to Microsoft
Corporation v. Charilaos Chrisochoou, WIPO Case No. D2004-0186 (“The Respondent is not currently
making an active use of the domain name. ...
2023-10-17 - Case Details
The Respondent has not responded and the Panel is unable to conceive of any basis upon which the Respondent could sensibly be said to have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (Telstra Corporation Ltd. v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0003).
The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy have been fulfilled.
...The fact that the disputed domain name currently points to an inactive website, on the basis of the “passive holding” doctrine, it does not avoid a finding of bad faith from the Panel, (see Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2021-06-17 - Case Details
Respondent is Mazen Alali, Jordan.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with FastDomain, Inc. (the “Registrar”).
3. ...See Facebook, Inc. v. Igor Dolgalev,
WIPO Case No. D2012-1008 (“The Panel finds that Respondent registered what he knew to be an increasingly valuable Domain Name and likely decided to hold it until a lucrative offer to buy it came his way or until he could figure out a way to exploit it for gain. ...
2022-02-25 - Case Details
Respondent is Romeo Golib, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...See Arkema France v.
Pepi Robert, WIPO Case No. D2014-1055 (use of a domain name to send email messages attempting to
make a fraudulent order for goods to take advantage of the credit and reputation of the complainant
establishes no legitimate rights of respondent in the disputed domain name). ...
2024-07-05 - Case Details
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in relation to the disputed domain name.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
It is for the Complainant to establish, at least prima facie, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names (Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0455; Belupod.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o.,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0110).
In this case, the fact that the web site operating under the disputed domain name offers for sale counterfeit goods bearing the Complainant’s trade mark, and that there has never been any licensing or other relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent, establishes a prima facie absence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...
2012-12-21 - Case Details
The Respondent is Nauman Shahid, Pakistan.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with OwnRegistrar, Inc. ...case=D2016-2316
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
WhatsApp, LLC v. Nauman Shahid
Case No. D2025-3619
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
The Complainant operates the WhatsApp messaging and voice-over-IP service and mobile application in various languages.
...
2025-11-06 - Case Details
See Intel Corporation
v. Mira Holdings, Inc., and Domain Admin, WIPO Case No. D2024-4776.
Nor are there further circumstances resulting from the records that could lead the Panel to the conclusion
that the Respondent’s aim in registering the disputed domain name was to profit from or exploit the
Complainant’s trademark. ...Lothian
Panelist
Date: August 19, 2025
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Web3 Investments Pty Ltd v. Mira Holdings
Case No. D2025-2250
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2025-08-22 - Case Details
The Respondent is Joaquim Veiga of "Paris", United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Melbourne IT Ltd (the "Registrar").
3. ...The visible use of the disputed domain name is a holding page from the hosting company InMotion Hosting that delivers a message to the owner of the disputed domain name about its domain name being "unavailable." ...
2016-06-20 - 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”).
...Prior UDRP decisions also support this conclusion. See Edmunds.com, Inc. v. Ult. Search, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2001-1319 (“registration and use of a domain name to redirect Internet users to websites of competing organizations constitutes bad faith registration and use under the Policy.”); Netwizards, Inc. v. ...
2014-10-28 - Case Details
In addition, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name is currently passively held. In view of the
Respondent’s default, the Panel shares the view held in Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of
America v. ...However, it is well established that passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith
under certain circumstances as decided, i.a., in Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2023-04-05 - Case Details
Little is known about the Respondent, which the Complainant says appears to be a web development company that registers domain names for clients.
The disputed domain name was registered on January 10, 2013.
The present case is a re-filing of the Complaint submitted October 15, 2014 against essentially the same Respondent as Goltens Worldwide Management Corp. v. ...Grove Broadcasting Co. Ltd v. Telesystems Communications Limited,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0703 ("Grove Broadcasting") was an application for a rehearing of a previous case by a complainant that had been denied the transfer of a domain name, on grounds similar to the present case, namely that the respective complainant had failed to demonstrate sufficiently that the respective respondent did not have rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. ...
2016-07-18 - Case Details
The Respondent is Serkan Kapu of New York, United States, self-represented.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the "Registrar").
3. ...Further, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's trademark on the grounds that the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's trademark in its entirety, and the addition of the descriptive term "coin" and a Top-Level Domain such as ".com" in a domain name may be disregarded when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark (Proactiva Medio Ambiente, S.A. v. ...
2018-04-04 - 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”).
...As stated inter alia in DHL Operations B.V v. Net Marketing Group, WIPO Case No.
D2005-0868, “It is obvious that the value and goodwill, of the Complainant’s mark DHL which has an
extensive world wide recognition, would have been known to the Respondent at the time of registration of
the Domain Name. ...
2023-05-24 - Case Details
Customer 1248460021, Canada / Let ya Crawford, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Google LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The disputed domain name fully and prominently incorporates Complainant’s GOVDELIVERY mark at the head of the disputed domain name. ...
2021-10-27 - Case Details
The Respondent is Name Redacted.0F
1
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Hostinger Operations, UAB (the
“Registrar”).
3. ...Leppink
Sole Panelist
Date: March 1, 2024
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Bacardi & Company Limited v. Name Redacted
Case No. D2024-0012
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2024-03-05 - Case Details
See, e.g., Microsoft Corporation v. Wayne Lybrand,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0020 (finding the domain name confusingly similar to the MICROSOFT mark).
...Thus, the consensus view is that paragraph 4(c) of the Policy shifts the burden to the Respondent to come forward with evidence of a right or legitimate interest in the Domain Name, once the Complainant has made a prima facie showing (as it has in this case). See, e.g., Document Technologies, Inc. v. ...
2010-05-27 - Case Details
The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain
name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...case=D2018-2466
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Revolutionrace AB v. Fashion Style Way
Case No. D2024-1515
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2024-07-03 - Case Details
The Respondent is Privacy Service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Constantin Busuioceanu,
Romania.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant’s evidence establishes that its mark was registered and well known long prior to
registration of the Domain Name. The Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s mark and the
Complainant has certified that the Domain Name is unauthorised by it.
...
2022-02-23 - Case Details
The Respondent therefore uses the disputed domain
name in bad faith (see Claudie Pierlot v. Yinglong Ma, WIPO Case No. D2018-2466).
Accordingly, the Complainant has also fulfilled paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
7. ...case=D2018-2466
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
J.D. Watkins Enterprises, Inc. v. Mon Sweet, Purewater
Case No. DME2022-0004
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. ...
2022-05-27 - Case Details
The Respondent is Yellow Pages of Egg bei Zurich, Switzerland.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Tucows Inc.
3. ...The Complainant is consequently, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, entitled to rely on these validly registered trademarks. See Respiratorius AB v. Dr. Bengt Skogvall, WhoisGuard,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1447.
The Complainant alleges that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademarks.
...
2009-05-18 - Case Details