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”).
...c) The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith because:
The domain name “accesses a website that lists sponsored links to the Complainant’s competitors,
“indicating that “Respondent’s intent with respect to the domain name is to redirect the Complainant’s potential customers (who mistakenly omit the last ‘i’ when typing the Complainant’s domain name of ‘repairclinic.com’ into a web browser) to the Respondent’s website ... ...
2011-04-13 - Case Details
The Panel notes that the Registrar verified that the First Respondent is the registrant of the disputed domain
name and the Second Respondent is the registrant of the disputed domain name
. ...The disputed domain name was registered on October 1, 2024. The disputed domain
name was registered on February 4, 2025. ...
2025-10-02 - 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”).
...Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following:
i) that the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and,
ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
iii) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2009-11-05 - Case Details
The Respondent is Insight Visual Communications of Bermuda, Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Network Solutions, 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”).
...
2009-05-13 - 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”).
...In this regard, it is worth noting an early decision of a UDRP panel to the effect that registration in bad faith, followed by a passive holding of a domain name when there is no way in which it could be used legitimately, can also amount to use in bad faith, Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2011-05-26 - Case Details
The Respondent is Perfect Privacy, LLC / Michael Kimbro, Delivius, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Register.com (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Brown
Sole Panelist
Date: April 14, 2022
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Hartford Fire Insurance Company v. Perfect Privacy, LLC / Michael Kimbro, Delivius
Case No. D2022-0251
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. ...
2022-04-27 - Case Details
See Pluxee International v. Yikai Ren, WIPO Case No. D2024-2710.
The application of these factors to the present case supports a finding that the Respondent has registered
and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...case=D2024-2710
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
MasTec North America, Inc. v. Yikai Ren
Case No. D2025-1392
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2025-06-03 - Case Details
The addition of a country name does nothing to change an otherwise identical or confusingly similar domain name.
- Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name...Except for the missing space between the terms “banamex” and “usa”, the disputed domain name is identical to the BANAMEX USA mark. See Grant Thornton International v. Martin Schmitz,
WIPO Case No. ...
2008-12-01 - Case Details
FA0508000547844 (October 11, 2005) (ordering transfer of the domain name );
- Grand Lodge Fraternal Order of Police v. Forum LLC, NAF, No. FA0506000493393 (July 28, 2005) (ordering transfer of the domain name );
- East Kentucky Network, LLC v. ...FA0508000528216 (September 22, 2005) (ordering transfer of the domain name ); and
- Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. & NM Nevada Trust v. Netsolutions Proxy Services, NAF, No. ...
2006-01-11 - Case Details
The Respondent is lary ann, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu.
...Since the decision in Telstra Corporation v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, it has
become well-established in subsequent decisions that non-use of a disputed domain name does not prevent
a finding of use in bad faith if a complainant can demonstrate that any good faith use of the domain name is
implausible. ...
2023-08-16 - Case Details
The Respondent is Deividas Samulionis, UAB "Sentosa" of Vilnius, Lithuania.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Tucows Inc. (the "Registrar").
3. ...In addition, the Respondent did not respond to the cease-and-desist letter and did not explain nor justify use of the Complainant's trademark in the disputed domain name. Past UDRP panels have held that failure to respond to a cease-and-desist letter may be considered a factor in finding bad faith registration and use of a domain name (see Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. ...
2017-01-10 - Case Details
The Respondent is Kyle E. Baugues, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The 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”).
...
2025-04-10 - Case Details
The Respondent is Kamal Mahmoud, Egypt.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2021-10-14 - Case Details
Respondent is DomainsByProxy.com / My Co Doan of Arizona, United States of America / London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.
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”).
...
2010-03-25 - Case Details
The Respondent is Domain Admin, Whoisprotection.cc, Malaysia / Zheng Bo Deng, Dengzheng Bo, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Web Commerce
Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s COMILEV trademark in its entirety. 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. ...
2022-03-09 - Case Details
The Respondent is Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States / 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. ...Second, the evidence shows that the Respondent is offering the Domain Name for sale for a price of USD 899. This sum is likely to exceed the Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs related to the Domain Name because the Domain Name has only been registered since November 10, 2021. ...
2022-03-08 - 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”).
...Regarding the domain name , it shall to be considered that the mere adding of a generic word to the trademark does not prevent the finding of confusing similarity between the domain name and the trademark.
2. ...
2007-06-22 - Case Details
The Respondent is Market Countryview, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Network Solutions, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The presence of a hyphen and the addition of the
gTLD in the disputed domain name does not eliminate the confusing similarity between the Mark and the
disputed domain name.
...
2026-01-08 - Case Details
The Respondent is xiansheng chen, Singapore.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a
Registrar.eu (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on November 17, 2022.
The Panel accessed the disputed domain name on February 20, 2023, when it was not linked to any active
website1. ...
2023-03-07 - Case Details
The Respondent is Vitalij Solomin, Ukraine.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Internet Invest, Ltd. dba Imena.ua (the “Registrar”).
3. ...See, Philip Morris Products S.A. v. Whois Privacy Protection Service / Vitalij Solomin,
WIPO Case No. D2019-2103, where the Respondent was found to have registered the domain name
2020-04-09 - Case Details