The Respondent is Bao Zheng of Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Internetx GMBH (the “Registrar”).
3. ...See, e.g., Groupe Auchan v. xmxzl,
WIPO Case No. DCC2006-0004; Finter Bank Zurich v. Shumin Peng,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0432.
In this case, the Panel notes that the Respondent has communicated with the Complainant in English (see section 5 below), the disputed domain name uses English language spelling and the Respondent’s website is in English.
...
2011-07-19 - Case Details
The Respondent is azisyah HARDIANI, Indonesia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Panel has independently established, using publicly available domain name sales history records, that
the disputed domain name was sold in October 2025 through a Registrar expired domain name auction.
...
2026-01-16 - Case Details
The Respondent is Peter Brabeck of Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Panel finds that this insignificant change fails to distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from the Trade Mark (see, e.g. FIL Limited v. Elliott Evans,
WIPO Case No. D2014-0259).
In light of the above, the Complainant succeeds on the first element of the Policy.
...
2015-02-04 - Case Details
Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO
Case No. D2003-0455, Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o., WIPO
Case No. D2004-0110). Moreover, the Respondent has been making use of the
disputed domain name, which use may be argued to give rise to some legitimate
interest.
...KG, MyBear Marketing-und Vertriebs GmbH, Mr. Thomas Dufner v. Bestinfo,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0990, to establish
that “the sole diversion of Internet traffic by Respondent to other, unrelated
websites, does not represent a use of the Domain Name in connection with a bona
fide offering of goods and services.” ...
2007-05-14 - Case Details
Therefore, except for that Domain Name, Respondent is passively holding all of the Domain Names. The Domain Name resolves to a social network website offering services similar to those of Complainants. ...It is sufficient to establish identify or confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy where a domain name wholly incorporates a complainant’s registered mark. See, e.g., Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. ...
2018-12-19 - Case Details
The Respondent is Jean-Pierre Dikoume, United Kingdom.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Amazon Registrar, Inc. ...case=D2021-2752
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Sodexo v. Jean-Pierre Dikoume
Case No. D2023-4161
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2023-12-21 - Case Details
Customer 1241344670, Canada / Enel Business, Enel, Italy.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Google LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...As regards the use in bad faith of the disputed domain name, pointing to an inactive website, the Panel considers that bad faith may exist even in cases of so-called “passive holding” (Instagram, LLC v. ...
2021-07-29 - Case Details
Respondent is Texas International Property Associates- NA NA, of Dallas, Texas, United States of America, represented by the Law Office of Gary Wayne Tucker, of United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Compana LLC.
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”).
...
2009-01-16 - Case Details
The Respondent is Liu Huaxiang (刘华祥), China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd. ...In other words, it is important to ensure fairness and equal treatment to the parties as well as expedition for domain name dispute resolution. (Whirlpool Corporation, Whirlpool Properties, Inc. v. Hui’erpu (HK) electrical applicance co. ltd.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2020-06-04 - Case Details
The Respondent is Whois Privacy Protection Foundation, Netherlands / Beglov Alexey, Belarus.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Hosting Concepts
B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu. ...Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical to its ACCUTANE mark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, and the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith given that it has been used for an ...
...
2022-07-06 - Case Details
Customer 1244582145, Canada / Kendra, Yale Brewing, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Google 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.
...
2019-10-25 - Case Details
The Respondent is Thomas Neill, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...See
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1; AXA SA v. Huade Wang, WIPO Case No. D2022-1289.
On this point, the Complainant asserts, among other things, that: (1) the Respondent has no registered
trademarks or trade names corresponding to the disputed domain name, (2) the Complainant has not
granted any authorization to the Respondent to register a domain name containing its trademarks or
otherwise make use of its marks, and (3) no commercial relationship exists between the Complainant and
the Respondent, nor does the website hosted at the domain name disclose such a lack of relationship.
...
2024-01-10 - 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").
...Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant must make 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. ...
2015-10-21 - Case Details
The Center verified that 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”).
...Identical or Confusingly Similar
Panel decisions have long held that the gTLD suffix is to be disregarded in determining whether the domain name at issue is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. InfoSpace.com, Inc. v. Tenenbaum Ofer,
WIPO Case No. ...
2008-07-14 - Case Details
Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Pinetree Development, Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0049. In that case the Panel held that the addition of ‘buy-cheap-online’ would not render the domain name sufficiently different to prevent consumer confusion. ...The use made does not fall within the confines of the notion of bona fide as usefully reviewed in Oki Data Americas, Inc., v. ASD, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0903.
Therefore the Panel holds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the contested domain name.
...
2007-12-21 - 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”).
...Respondent is presumably receiving some form of compensation for click-throughs to such third party competitors. This use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.”); and Lyonnaise de Banque v. ...
2011-08-01 - Case Details
The Respondent is Svenska Datorsystem AB, Hultgren Johan of Värnamo, Sweden.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with .NU Domain Ltd.
3. ...The Complainant contends that, in the light of the above, and due to the well-known nature of its ELGIGANTEN mark, the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith.
The Complainant also contends that the disputed domain name has never been used, only parked, and draws the Panel’s attention to the decision in Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2010-09-14 - Case Details
The Respondent is Antony Evans, Thailand.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”).
3. ...case=D2001-0817
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Birmingham Hippodrome Theatre Trust Limited v. Antony Evans
Case No. D2025-3884
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2025-11-14 - Case Details
The Respondent is Sanae Sugimoto, France.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with HOSTINGER Operations, UAB (the
“Registrar”).
3. ...Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes (i) the distinctiveness and the reputation of the
Complainant’s trademark, (ii) the composition of the disputed domain name in as far the association of the
Complainant’s trademark with the term “info” suggests that said disputed domain name is used in association
with a website providing information about said trademark, (iii) the failure of the Respondent to submit a
response, (iv) the fact that the Respondent’s concealed its identity, and (v) the previous use of the disputed
domain name in relation with a website mimicking the Complainant’s one, and finds that in the circumstances
of this case the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under
the Policy.
...
2023-12-21 - Case Details
The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NETIM SARL (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Previous UDRP panels have found that gTLDs, including new gTLDs, should typically be disregarded for the purpose of establishing whether a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. See, for example, Andreas Stihl AG & Co KG v. ...
2014-12-12 - Case Details