The Respondent is MORAD MORIME, PLAQUIELECTRO, France.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu. ...According to prior UDRP panel decisions, it is sufficient that the complainant shows prima facie that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in order to shift the burden of production to the respondent (see Croatia Airlines did. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-07-14 - Case Details
The Respondent is Abdessamed Nadri, Algeria.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Automattic Inc. ...The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on October 3, 2023. The disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ONLYFANS trademarks. ...
2024-04-08 - Case Details
The Respondent is Leo Tan, D’Marketing Agency, Singapore.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. .../Andrea Mondini/
Andrea Mondini
Sole Panelist
Date: November 27, 2025
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Instagram, LLC v. Leo Tan, D’Marketing Agency
Case No. D2025-4055
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. ...
2025-12-01 - Case Details
The Respondent is Syed Hussain / IBN7 Media Group of Closter, New Jersey, United States of America (“United States”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc. ...In Hugo Boss Trade Mark Management GmbH & Co. KG and Hugo Boss AG v. Cheng Yong,
WIPO Case No. D2016-0160, the panel stated that the domain name consisted of the Complainants’ HUGO BOSS mark, the generic words “store”, “shop” and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” and said that“It is well-established that where the distinctive and prominent element of a disputed domain name is the complainant’s mark and the only deviation is the inclusion of numbers, letters or a generic term or the gTLD, as prefix or suffix, such prefix or suffix does not negate the confusing similarity between the domain name and the mark”.
...
2017-07-24 - Case Details
The Respondent is lchujuan lian of Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Tucows Inc. ...The Complainant relies on Deutz AG v. su su xiaoji,
WIPO Case No. D2015-0272.
It is settled case law that the addition of a geographical wording to a trademark in a domain name is insufficient to avoid confusing similarity under the first element of the UDRP (paragraph 4(a)(i) of UDRP).
...
2016-03-23 - Case Details
The Respondents are Traoley Joe, Thailand, and Justin Baer, Taiwan Province of China.
2. The Domain Names and Registrars
The disputed domain name is registered with Dynadot, LLC; and the disputed domain
name is registered with Gname.com Pte. ...C. The Disputed Domain Names
The disputed domain name was registered on December 5, 2022. The disputed domain
name was registered on November 18, 2022.
...
2023-03-16 - Case Details
The Respondent is Registration Private of Scottsdale, Arizona, United States of America (“United States”) / Abhi Raj of Patna, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Yet, it is noted that an independent search by visiting the Internet site linked to the disputed domain name has been performed by the Panel. The competence of the Panel to perform such independent search is undisputed and in line with previous UDRP decisions, e.g., Hesco Bastion Limited v. ...
2019-02-13 - Case Details
The Respondent is Fei Miao, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed
domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2025-12-24 - Case Details
And see Groupe Canal + v. johon, Host Master, Njalla
Okta LLC, and WALID MSR, WIPO Case No. D2025-1465, regarding copycat websites being a bad faith use
of the disputed domain name.
...case=D2022-1311
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Tea Forté Inc. dba Jacobs Douwe Egberts USA v. John Jay
Case No. D2025-3450
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2025-10-21 - Case Details
The Respondent is user bo7, United Arab Emirates (“UAE”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc.
...case=D2014-0743
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
ALSTOM v. user bo7
Case No. D2023-3077
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2023-09-22 - Case Details
Levine, Esq., United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...D2018-0973 in support of the general proposition that dealing in dictionary words can constitute a legitimate interest even if a third party has trade mark rights which are similar or identical to the domain name.
A similar view was expressed by the panel in Deep Focus Inc v. Domain Admin, Abstract Holdings International LTD,
WIPO Case No. ...
2018-10-16 - Case Details
LEGO Juris A/S v. huangderong,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1325). Combining a trademark with abbreviations to form a domain name also does not avoid a likelihood of confusion. ...As established by Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, the passive holding of a domain name following its bad faith registration can satisfy the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy if the circumstances of the Respondent’s behavior are indicative of bad faith. ...
2011-05-26 - Case Details
The Respondent is Amir Jabur, Netherlands (Kingdom of the)
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Accordingly,
the Respondent cannot be regarded as using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide
offering of goods or services. Compare Welcomemat Services, Inc. v. ...
2025-03-07 - 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”).
...Where the Complainant has sought transfer of a disputed domain name, and the Respondent consents to transfer, then pursuant to paragraph 10 of the Rules the Panel can proceed immediately to make an order for transfer.”); and Mary Frances Accessories, Inc. v. ...
2008-08-28 - Case Details
Lazard Freres & Co. LLC and Lazard Frères S.A.S. v. Super Privacy
Service LTD c/o Dynadot / Domain Admin, Kevin Yao, WIPO Case No. D2021-1028.
Here the disputed domain name is offered for sale for an amount which is likely, without evidence from the
Respondent to the contrary, in excess of the Respondent’s out-of-pocket expenses relating directly to the
disputed domain name. ...case=D2001-0817
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
The James Beard Foundation, Inc. v. adile gozcu
Case No. D2024-2088
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2024-07-31 - Case Details
The Respondent is Advena Inc, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Moniker Online Services, LLC (the
“Registrar”).
3. ...Under WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7, “This test typically involves a side-by-side comparison of
the domain name and the textual components of the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is
recognizable within the disputed domain name. ...
2023-06-06 - Case Details
The Domain Name and Registrar
2.1 The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Nevertheless, the Panel has decided to consider the contentions to be found in that email in coming to its decision in this case.
5.5 In that email European Consumer Claims Ltd repeats its earlier contention that it is not the “domain name holder” and that the proceedings should have been discontinued. In this respect it relies upon section 3(b)(v) of the Rules. ...
2020-08-14 - Case Details
Respondent is Krishan Munish aka Munish Krishan, Manila Industries, Inc., United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with EuroDNS S.A. ...It is highly likely that the disputed domain name is an intentional misspelling of Complainant’s own domain name. See Government Employees Insurance Company v. ...
2020-08-31 - 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”).
...Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0455; Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0110). Nevertheless, given that in this case the likelihood of confusion is strong, and the only use of the disputed domain name is for a site containing material directed at the same target audience as the Complainant’s magazine and its corresponding Internet site, the Panel is of the view that it is implausible that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...
2011-02-09 - Case Details
The Panel finds these additions to the LEGO mark in the disputed domain name do not avoid confusing similarity with the Complainant’s LEGO mark (e.g., Philip Morris USA Inc. v. ...Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant must show a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, which the Respondent may rebut (e.g., Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2019-04-05 - Case Details