The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisf ied 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 this regard, five of the six disputed domain names were registered with the same registrar and have the
same registrant. The disputed domain name , although with a dif ferent registrar
and listing a dif ferent registrant, follows a highly similar pattern in the selected name, incorporating
Complainant’s full corporate name and ending with the Top-Level Domain “.cc.” ...
2025-12-11 - Case Details
Under the third requirement of the Policy, the Complainant must establish that the disputed domain name has been both registered and used in bad faith by the Respondent: see e.g. Burn World-Wide, Ltd. d/b/a BGT Partners v. ...Paragraph 1 of the Rules defines "Reverse Domain Name Hijacking" to be "using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain name holder of a domain name".
...
2016-07-19 - Case Details
The Respondent is Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Rakesh Raj, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...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”).
...
2022-09-15 - Case Details
The Respondent is Domain Administrator, Registrant of iranmichelin.com, United Kingdom / Ali Sadeghi, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Atak Domain Hosting Internet ve Bilgi Teknolojileri Limited Sirketi d/b/a Atak Teknoloji (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Burn World-Wide, Ltd. d/b/a BGT Partners v. Banta Global Turnkey Ltd
WIPO Case No. D2010-0470.
Generally speaking, a finding that a domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith requires an inference to be drawn that the respondent in question has registered and is using the disputed domain name to take advantage of its significance as a trademark owned by (usually) the complainant.
...
2021-10-15 - Case Details
The Respondent is Valeria Ferrazza, Italy.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with URL Solutions, Inc. ...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”).
...
2026-06-15 - Case Details
The Respondent is gao da, Hong Kong, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Gname.com Pte. ...Therefore, the facts do not support a claim of a bona fide offering of
goods or services under the “Oki Data test”. See Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No.
D2001-0903.
Furthermore, the nature of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation. ...
2023-10-12 - Case Details
The Respondent is RONGKAI, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Sav.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...No. 1729894, registered on January 10, 2023). The Complainant also owns the domain
name .
The disputed domain name was registered on July 24, 2024. The Complainant alleges that the website
associated with the disputed domain name is inactive, although no evidence is provided. ...
2025-06-20 - Case Details
The Respondent is AnhND, SilverEyes, Viet Nam.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Alibaba.com Singapore E-
Commerce Private Limited (the “Registrar”).
3. ...In the view of the Panel, noting that the Complainant’s use and registration of its trademark predate the
registration of the disputed domain name and the nature of the disputed domain name, it is inconceivable
that the Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name without knowledge of the
Complainant’s trademark. ...
2023-08-21 - Case Details
Respondent is Tom Hillary, xbiotech, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (hereinafter “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with
Hostinger Operations, UAB (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Based on this incident, the MX configuration of the Disputed Domain Name was disabled due to terms of
service violations.
The Disputed Domain Name currently “can’t be reached” by a browser.
5. ...
2024-07-03 - Case Details
The Respondent is Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Christopher Hammer,
Denmark.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc.
...The Respondent has not made use of the Domain
Name in connection with a bona fide offering. The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name is not bona fide,
but rather evidence of bad faith. ...
2022-08-24 - Case Details
The Respondent is Masoud Mohammadi Sichan, Iran (Islamic Republic of).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with IRNIC.
3. ...There is no evidence of the Respondent’s use of, or
demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of
goods or services. The use of the disputed domain name does not satisfy the Oki Data principles (see Oki
Data Americas, Inc. v. ...
2024-02-13 - Case Details
page 2
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”).
...The Complainant maintains an extensive presence online through its websites at
“www.victoriabeckham.com” and “www.victoriabeckhambeauty.com” for her fashion and beauty products.
The disputed domain names were registered as follows: the domain name on
January 12, 2025, the domain name on February 18, 2025, the domain
name on June 27, 2025, the domain name on
April 14, 2025, the domain name on January 24, 2025 and the domain
name on February 17, 2025. ...
2025-11-12 - Case Details
While the Complainant’s registered trademark is in a stylised form, the words “fomo games” are clearly the core feature of such mark and they are also clearly recognisable in the disputed domain name. That makes the present case distinguishable from the cases Pullmantur, S.A. v. Domain Asset Holdings, LLC, Domain Administrator,
WIPO Case No. D2015-0053 and Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Marlboro Beverages / Vivek Singh,
WIPO Case No. D2014-1398 referenced by the Respondent. As the Complainant’s trademark remains visually and aurally recognisable within the disputed domain name, therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is at least confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. ...
2021-01-21 - Case Details
As sections 2.5.1 and 2.8.2 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 records, where a domain name is identical to a mark or comprises the mark combined with some other term that does not sufficiently signal that the domain name registrant is not the trade mark owner, then the domain name is likely to involve impermissible impersonation of the trade mark owner. ...This is so regardless of whether the “Oki Data” test has been satisfied.
6.12 Here the additions to the trade marks in the Domain Name are the words “USA”, “tea” or “rooibos”. As is discussed in section 2.5 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and by this Panel in Johnson & Johnson v. ...
2020-12-18 - Case Details
The Respondent is Raj soni, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Hostinger Operations, UAB (the
“Registrar”).
3. ...The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed
domain name.
The Complainant finds that the disputed domain name is likely to make Internet users assume that the
disputed domain name offers services supplied by the Complainant.
...
2025-08-12 - Case Details
The Respondent is Asad Ali, Diamond Furniture, United Arab Emirates.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with AE Domain Administration (.aeDA).
3. ...The disputed domain name currently resolves to a parking page.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2025-03-27 - Case Details
The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.
https://www.wipo.int/en/web/amc/domain-name-disputes/overview/index
https://www.wipo.int/en/web/amc/domain-name-disputes/overview/index
https://www.wipo.int/en/web/amc/domain-name-disputes/overview/index
https://www.wipo.int/en/web/amc/domain-name-disputes/overview/index
https://www.wipo.int/en/web/amc/domain-name-disputes/overview/index
https://www.wipo.int/en/web/amc/domain-name-disputes/overview/index
page 4
C. ...Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel
orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
/Vincent Denoyelle/
Vincent Denoyelle
Sole Panelist
Date: September 18, 2026
https://www.wipo.int/en/web/amc/domain-name-disputes/overview/index
https://www.wipo.int/en/web/amc/domain-name-disputes/overview/index
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
EPSE Joueclub Entente des Professionnels Spécialistes de L’enfant v. ...
2026-09-22 - Case Details
The Respondent is Privacy Protection, United States of America (“United States”) / LIUQINGRU, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Sav.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Complainant submits that the Respondent uses the disputed domain name to redirect to a third party
website where the disputed domain name is listed for sale at a “buy now” price of USD 1,455. ...
2022-08-24 - Case Details
The Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, United States of America / Mark Cendic,
Croatia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (“the Domain Name”) is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the
“Registrar”).
3. ...The Domain Name has been offered for sale
generally on the Internet. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
...
2022-05-20 - Case Details
The Respondent is Ai Kirishima, Personal, Japan.
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. ...Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A.,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0451.
Putting aside the “.tokyo” TLD, all that remains of the Domain Name is the AMUNDI trademark. ...
2021-12-10 - Case Details