WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Les Parfumeries Fragonard v. Jaime Vega Montes / Domain Name Subject to ICANN UDRP Dispute
Case No. D2012-1526
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Les Parfumeries Fragonard of Grasse, France, represented by Inlex IP Expertise, France.
The Respondent is Jaime Vega Montes of Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Andrés Ibañez, Bolivia / Domain Name Subject to ICANN UDRP Dispute of Vancouver, Washington, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Domain.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...
2012-09-19 - Case Details
The Respondent is Damian Macafee (a.k.a James M. Van Johns), QTK Internet/Name Proxy/Private Registration of London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with UK2 Group Ltd.
3. ...The Panel is aware of a decision under the Policy in The New York Times Company v. Name Administration Inc. (BVI), NAF Claim No. FA1349045, where a Panel held that laches provided “a valid defense in any domain dispute where the facts so warrant”.
...
2011-06-27 - Case Details
ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
American Airlines, Inc. v. Domain Privacy, Domain Name Privacy Inc
Case No. DCO2024-0064
1. The Parties
The Complainant is American Airlines, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by
Greenberg Traurig LLP, United States.
...Such use
demonstrates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of
the disputed domain name. See Ross-Simons of Warwick, Inc. v. Admin Billing, WIPO Case No.
D2004-0696; MySpace, Inc. v. ...
2024-11-06 - Case Details
Respondent is Ercuement Alp of Izmir, Turkey.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PSI-USA, Inc. dba Domain Robot (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Thus, the Panel finds that the dominant portion “Frosch” of Complainant's trademark is incorporated in the disputed domain name and that – by analogy – the omission of the word “Sport” must not be considered as providing a basis of distinctiveness for the purpose of comparison between the trademark and the disputed domain name (see Archer-Daniels-Midland Company v. ...
2012-06-14 - Case Details
The Respondent is DODSONCLAYTON, 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. ...Af ter a complainant has made a prima facie case, the burden of production shifts to a respondent to present
evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See, e.g., Croatia Airlines d.d. v.
Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455.
...
2024-09-26 - Case Details
The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (“Domain Name”) is registered with Ascio Technologies Inc. ...For instance, in Sanofi v Domains by Proxy, LLC / domain admin,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0368, it was held that the disputed domain name, , was confusingly similar to the SANOFI mark because the “only difference between the SANOFI mark and the domain name was a substitution of the original letter ‘o’ by an ‘i’ in the word ‘sanofi’”.
...
2017-11-10 - Case Details
Minor spelling and punctuation differences have been held to
make a domain name confusingly similar to a trade or service mark. See Microsoft
Corporation v. Microsof.com aka Tarek Ahmed, WIPO
Case No. ...Young Wook Kim,
WIPO Case No. D2001-1142, (respondent’s
domain name was likely to be confused with complainant’s
mark CHEVRON); and Pfizer, Inc. v. ...
2004-06-10 - Case Details
Respondent is Taylor Smith of Khabarovsk, the Russian Federation.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Todaynic.com, Inc. ...E.g., The Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. Mike Morgan,
WIPO Case No. D2005-1132 (where complainant sought transfer of the disputed domain name, and respondent consented to transfer, paragraph 10 of the Rules permit a panel to proceed immediately to make order for transfer without determination of elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy), citing Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. ...
2015-05-27 - Case Details
The Center has verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfies 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 to maintain an inexpensive and expeditious avenue for resolving domain name disputes. Language requirements should not lead to undue burdens being placed on the parties and undue delay to the proceeding (Whirlpool Corporation, Whirlpool Properties, Inc. v. ...
2010-02-12 - Case Details
The Respondent is Boris Nandi, Imprint Media Group Pty Ltd, Australia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The addition of the words “the” and
“academy” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the
Complainant’s trademarks (see also Allianz SE v. Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org) /
Fernando Flores, WIPO Case No. ...
2023-11-24 - Case Details
The Respondent is Klemen Stirn, Sevnica, Slovenia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Go Daddy
Software.
3. ...The second issue is the key element in this analysis: whether Respondent’s
use of the Domain Name can reasonably be viewed as bona fide and legitimate?
A deliberate infringing use cannot be considered bona fide use (see Lava
Trademark Holding, supra; citing Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. ...
2005-04-01 - Case Details
The Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name at issue is . The domain name is registered with Address Creation of Irvine, CA, U.S.A ("the Registrar"). ...The Panel is prepared to infer bad faith registration and use from the following facts:
(a) The use of a famous person’s name in a domain suggests an intent to divert
users seeking information on that celebrity (see Nicole Kidman v. ...
2002-03-26 - Case Details
The Respondent is Faruk Pazarlama, Turkey.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc. (Name.com LLC) (the “Registrar”).
3. ...In this regard, the Panel is particularly convinced that the Respondent cannot be assessed as a legitimate retailer for the Complainant’s products in light of Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0903 (“Oki Data”) and thus is not entitled to use the disputed domain name accordingly. ...
2019-09-27 - Case Details
The Respondent is Rohan Mubbashir Khan, Turkey.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...In this regard, the Panel is particularly convinced that the Respondent cannot be assessed as a legitimate dealer for the Complainant’s products in light of Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0903 (“Oki Data”) and thus is not entitled to use the disputed domain name accordingly. ...
2020-08-28 - Case Details
The Respondent is Sudhanshu Aggarwal, MH Consultants, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...case=D2011-2209
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Capital One Financial Corporation v. Sudhanshu Aggarwal, MH Consultants
Case No. D2026-2708
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. ...
2026-08-11 - Case Details
Respondent is Moniker Online Services, LLC, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Moniker Online Services, LLC (the
“Registrar”).
3. ...In comparing Complainant’s EQUIFAX mark with the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the
disputed domain name is confusingly similar to this mark as the mark is clearly recognizable within the
disputed domain name, save for the addition of the letter “x”. ...
2023-04-24 - Case Details
The Respondent is Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, Panama.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the
“Registrar”).
3. ...case=D2019-1991
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
LEGO Juris A/S v. Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico
Case No. D2024-3813
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. ...
2024-11-18 - Case Details
The Respondent is Yeniteknoloji Bilişim Hiz San Tic Ltd. Şti., Turkey.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).
3. ...In this regard, the Panel is particularly convinced that the Respondent cannot be assessed as a legitimate dealer and repair service for the Complainant’s products in light of Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0903 (“Oki Data”) and thus is not entitled to use the disputed domain name accordingly. ...
2021-05-11 - Case Details
The Respondent is Bladimir Boyiko of Moscow, Russian Federation.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with eNom.
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”).
...
2009-05-29 - 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”).
...The disputed domain name was registered on June 1, 2019; the disputed domain name was registered on registered on May 10, 2017; the disputed domain name was registered on June 5, 2019.
...
2020-03-04 - Case Details