The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameSilo, LLC
(the “Registrar”).
3. ...As
numerous UDRP panels have held, incorporating a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a
domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark (see PepsiCo, Inc. v. PEPSI, SRL
(a/k/a P.E.P.S.I.) and EMS Computer Industry (a/k/a EMS), WIPO Case No. ...
2022-08-17 - Case Details
The Respondent is Shao Juan Huang, China.
2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain name (“Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...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”).
...
2020-10-20 - Case Details
The Respondent is yangyang, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with OwnRegistrar, Inc. ...See, e.g., Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903 (“the fact that a domain name
wholly incorporates a complainant’s registered mark is sufficient to establish identity or confusing similarity
for purposes of the Policy”)).
...
2023-11-23 - Case Details
Respondent is Charles Martin, Net Exclusive LLC, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...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 the threshold.
...
2021-03-22 - Case Details
The Respondent is Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States of America / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, Panama.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The addition of the descriptive term “estates” does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Trade Marks (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8; see also, inter alia, TPI Holdings, Inc. v. ...
2020-01-27 - Case Details
The Respondent is basil kelly, Ireland, self-represented.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd. ...case=D2015-1171
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
The Corporation of Gonzaga University dba Gonzaga University v. basil kelly
Case No. D2025-2227
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2025-08-11 - Case Details
The Respondent is Bernard Valo, France.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Hostinger, UAB (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is not used in connection with a
bona fide offering of goods or services, as the disputed domain name directs to the registrar’s webpage.
...
2023-04-27 - Case Details
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 was registered by the Respondent in bad faith, and
- the disputed domain name is being used by the Respondent in bad faith.
...Moreover, the Complainant sent cease-and-desist letters to the Respondent asking the Respondent to disable and transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant; the Respondent did not reply, it rather continuing using the disputed domain name to address a website using pay-per-click advertisement links; this is additional evidence of bad faith usage (see International Business Machines Corporation v. ...
2021-06-30 - Case Details
The Respondent is Mason Jonathan of Sprendlingen, Germany.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Todaynic.com, Inc. ...To this regard, the Complainant points out UDRP decision Lilly ICOS LLC v. John Hopking / Neo net Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0694.
Also, La Roche asserts that the use and registration of the trademark XENICAL predates the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name, as well as alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to La Roche’s trademark.
...
2013-01-18 - Case Details
The Respondent is Guojian, Shanghai Baixi Industry Compang Limited of Shanghai, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with eName Technology Co., Ltd. ...See Taylor Wimpey PLC, Taylor Wimpey Holdings Limited v. honghao internet foshan co, ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0974.
There is no evidence suggesting that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or that the Respondent has any rights in the term "Oppanol". ...
2015-11-11 - 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” 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”).
...Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances indicating bad faith registration
and use on the part of a domain name registrant, namely:
“(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the
purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is
the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration
in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from
reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such
conduct; or
(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a
competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet
users to your website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s
mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or
service on your web site or location.”
...
2022-02-15 - Case Details
The Respondent is Name Redacted.1
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC (the
“Registrar”).
3. ...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. ...
2025-04-07 - Case Details
Customer 0159460605, Canada / Laurent Lachant, E.Leclerc Precommandes, France.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Tucows Inc. ...See in similar circumstances the previous UDRP decision Richemont International SA v. scott chopskie / a+ programming consultants,
WIPO Case No. D2014-0689 concerning the domain name .
...
2020-11-24 - Case Details
The Respondent is luis acosta, luis acosta coyote of Owatonna, Minnesota, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with 1API GmbH (the “Registrar”).
3. ...See Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. Susan Kelly,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0709.
Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has satisfied its burden of showing bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
7. ...
2018-03-14 - Case Details
The disputed domain name was registered on February 26, 2018.
Currently, the website to which the disputed domain name redirects is inactive.
5. ...See
WIPO Case No. DMX2012-0006, Google, Inc. v. Robert Takovich. Therefore, Respondent cannot pretend to have any legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...
2018-05-02 - Case Details
See for example Nokia Corporation v. Nokiagirls.com a.k.a IBCC,
WIPO Case No. D2000 0102, regarding the domain name , in which the addition of the noun “girls” was not sufficient to distinguish the domain name from the trademark NOKIA. Also see ACCOR v. VVNW Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0026 in which the panel held that the addition of the term “hotel” was not sufficient to avoid confusion between the domain name and the trademark. ...
2011-04-12 - 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”).
...There are several cases, of which Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, supra, is an example, where so called “passive holding” of a domain name has been held to constitute use within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
...
2013-03-28 - Case Details
Respondent is Host Master, Transure Enterprise Ltd, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Above.com, Inc. ...Such use of the disputed domain name does not amount to a bone fide use or provide Respondent
with a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. ...
2022-08-03 - Case Details
Customer 1247344212, Canada / Nicholas Velonis, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Google LLC (the “Registrar”).
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” 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”).
...
2022-03-01 - Case Details
The capitalizing of a famous trade mark in a domain name for the purpose of redirecting visitors to other commercial websites is not a bona fide use of that domain name. ...The Complainant and its affiliates operate their internationally-diverse offices in the English language.
(v) The Respondent is intentionally seeking to put the Complainant to the added work of translating the Complaint and evidence so as to gain leverage in negotiating a sale of the disputed domain name.
...
2016-05-19 - Case Details