Quaife Engineering v. Luton,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1201 (no bona fide offering because domain name improperly suggested that the reflected site was the official U.S. website for Quaife, an English company; moreover, respondent's deceptive communications with inquiring consumers supported a finding of no legitimate interest); Easy Heat, Inc. v. ...D2001-0344 (no bona fide use when respondent suggested that it was the manufacturer of complainant's products); Grundfos Holding A/S v. Ahmed Alshahri,
WIPO Case No. D2015-1112;
- The Respondent must not try to corner the market in all domain names, thus depriving the trademark owner of reflecting its own mark in a domain name. ...
2016-11-02 - Case Details
The Respondent is Edmond Rothschild, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with eNom, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Complainant has not authorized the use of its trademarks in the disputed domain name or otherwise.
Further, the Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not making a
legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. ...
2024-12-11 - Case Details
The Respondent is Broca M, frettey, USA.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Dominet (HK) Limited (the “Registrar”).
3. ...See also Richmont International SA v. brandon gill, WIPO Case No.
D2013-0037.
Continuing to Policy paragraph 4(c)(ii), it is nowhere apparent in the record that the Respondent has been
commonly known by the disputed domain name. ...
2025-04-02 - Case Details
The Center verified that 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").
...As it is well established by the long line of cases from Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, the requirement of the Policy of a domain name "being used in bad faith" is not limited to positive actions.
...
2016-07-12 - Case Details
Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. WhoisGuard, WhoisGuard Protected / Phily Helen,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0889). Furthermore, the addition of the generic top level domain suffix “.com” is non-distinctive in this case because it is used as a mere technical requirement for the registration of the disputed domain name.
...Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant must show a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, which Respondent may rebut (e.g. Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2014-07-04 - Case Details
The Respondents registered the disputed domain name on February 21, 2022, and
the disputed domain name on July 7, 2022 (Annex 1 to the Complaint).
...https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0001.html
page 6
Therefore, the Panel is convinced that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith by the
Respondent.
(b) Although there is no evidence that the disputed domain names were being actively used (at the time of
filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a website displaying an
“Error 1000” message and the disputed domain name resolved a website with no substantive
content, and now both disputed domain name resolve to inactive websites), previous UDRP panels have
found that bad faith use under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy does not necessarily require a positive act on
the part of the respondent – the non-use of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under
paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy (see especially Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2022-12-29 - 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”).
...While panel assessment remains fact-specific, generally speaking such
circumstances, alone or together, include: (i) the respondent’s likely knowledge of the complainant’s rights,
(ii) the distinctiveness of the complainant’s mark, (iii) a pattern of abusive registrations by the respondent, (iv)
website content targeting the complainant’s trademark, e.g., through links to the complainant’s competitors,
(v) threats to point or actually pointing the domain name to trademark-abusive content, (vi) threats to “sell to
the highest bidder” or otherwise transfer the domain name to a third party, (vii) failure of a respondent to
present a credible evidence-backed rationale for registering the domain name, […] Particularly where the
domain name at issue is identical or confusingly similar to a highly distinctive or famous mark, panels have
tended to view with a degree of skepticism a respondent defense that the domain name was merely
registered for legitimate speculation (based for example on any claimed dictionary meaning) as opposed to
targeting a specific brand owner.” ...
2023-07-10 - Case Details
In other words, it is
important to ensure fairness to the parties and the maintenance of an inexpensive and expeditious avenue
for resolving domain name disputes (Whirlpool Corporation, Whirlpool Properties, Inc. v. Hui’erpu (HK)
electrical appliance co. ...Such scenarios include (i) evidence showing that the
respondent can understand the language of the complaint, (ii) the language/script of the domain name
particularly where the same as that of the complainant’s mark, (iii) any content on the webpage under the
disputed domain name, (iv) prior cases involving the respondent in a particular language, (v) prior
correspondence between the parties, (vi) potential unfairness or unwarranted delay in ordering the
complainant to translate the complaint, (vii) evidence of other respondent-controlled domain names
registered, used, or corresponding to a particular language, (viii) in cases involving multiple domain names,
the use of a particular language agreement for some (but not all) of the disputed domain names, (ix)
currencies accepted on the webpage under the disputed domain name, or (x) other indicia tending to show
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?...
2025-01-17 - Case Details
The Respondent is Jesper Wennick of Copenhagen, Denmark.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Moniker Online Services, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...This type of setup by the Respondent is a clear indication of bad faith use as previously stated in other UDRP decisions such as The Procter & Gamble Company v. Names2000.com,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0357 concerning the domain name , and in Representaciones De Materias Primas Industriales Ltda. v. ...
2012-12-06 - Case Details
The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameKing.com.
3. ...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”).
...
2008-08-11 - Case Details
Respondent is PRIVATE WHOIS of Cayman Islands, Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Bargin Register Inc.
3. ...Parties' Contentions
A. Complainants
Complainants contend that the domain name is confusingly similar to its famous DANNON and DANONE marks; that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, and that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith.
...
2010-01-05 - 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”).
...Initially, it can be established that there is no evidence that the Respondent HyperActive ApS uses the disputed domain name (or is preparing to use) the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services (insofar as the content is for the Claimant’s benefit), nor that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or is making noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name.
...
2015-02-25 - 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”).
...The panel found support in Digital Vision, Ltd. v. Advanced Chemill Systems,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0827, from which case it adopted the statement “paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy does not require that the trademark be registered prior to the domain name. ...
2014-06-13 - Case Details
The Complainant cites Föreningen Roskilde Festival v. Martin Vindheim,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0285 in support of its contention that the Respondent has a history of such actions, has engaged in a pattern of such conduct and is a well-known domain name pirate who has been subject to a complaint on a previous occasion. ...The Respondent adds that “grandpa Vindheim” was 75 years old and that this is how the use of the letter “V” plus number structure of its domain name registrations began.
The Respondent states that it and the Complainant are not competitors and that the disputed domain names were not registered primarily to disrupt the Complainant’s business. ...
2013-10-30 - Case Details
Respondent is Raymond Delgado, Chase Purpose Co., United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Tucows, Inc. ...Complainant
Complainant contends that (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s
trademarks, (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and (iii)
Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...
2023-12-14 - Case Details
The Respondent is Mark Marchese, Spring Hill, Florida, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with
Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a directNIC.com.
3. ...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”).
...
2005-09-19 - Case Details
The Respondent is HongShuiYou (洪水友), China, self-represented.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd. ...The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The disputed domain name is passively held, which is evidence of bad faith. ...
2020-04-01 - Case Details
The Disputed Domain Name was registered on July 14, 2022. As of the date of this Decision, the Disputed
Domain Name is resolving to an inactive website. ...D2019-2718; Alstom S.A. and General Electric
Company v. Sichuan Electricity Transmission and Distribution Engineering, WIPO No. DCO2016-0032).
Given the fame and wide use of the ALSTOM trademarks by the Complainant, which occurs in numerous
countries, including in Viet Nam, where the Respondent is located, and well predated the registration dates
of the Disputed Domain Name, it is very unlikely that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name
in a fortuity. ...
2023-08-30 - Case Details
The Respondent is Anirban Roy, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Wix.com Ltd. ...Accordingly, the disputed domain name is not in active use currently, see e.g., Accenture Global Services Limited v. Domain eRegistration,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-06-17 - Case Details
The Respondent is Muslum Degin, Turkey.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Respondent was involved in at least one UDRP dispute decided against it, see Amalgamated Bank v. Muslum Design,
WIPO Case No. D2018-2875.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its well-known trademark CARLSBERG, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...
2020-03-18 - Case Details