In relation to domain name, it is not uncommon for users to mistype a domain name or use alternative spelling for a company name...- Furthermore the disputed domain names incorporate the SWAROVSKI trademark of the Complainant in its entirety.
- In case of the disputed domain name the second letter of the disputed domain name is “v” rather than “w” when compared to the SWAROVSKI trademark of the Complainant. ...
2011-09-27 - Case Details
Respondent is Name Redacted.1
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC (the
“Registrar”).
3. ...The disputed domain name was registered on November 23, 2023. The disputed domain name is not
currently linked to an active website. ...
2024-04-10 - 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”).
...page 5
As to the fact that three of the disputed domain names currently direct to an inactive or error webpage, the
Panel finds that holding a domain name passively, without making any use of it, also does not confer any
rights or legitimate interests in such disputed domain name on the Respondent in the circumstances of this
case (see in this regard earlier UDRP decisions such as Bollore SE v. ...
2026-06-16 - Case Details
The Respondent is John Franklin, United States of America (“U.S.”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, which is clearly
recognizable in the disputed domain name. ...
2023-02-06 - Case Details
the “Registrar”).
The disputed domain name , is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).
The disputed domain name , is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...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”).
...
2022-01-06 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is registered with Blue Razor Domains, LLC (the “Second 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”).
...
2021-08-04 - Case Details
The Respondent is Mike Drovko of Beverly Hills, California, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name ("Disputed Domain Name") is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...See Altria Group, Inc. v. Steven Company,
WIPO Case No. D2010‑1762. Accordingly, a complainant need only make out a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. ...
2015-11-06 - Case Details
Respondent is joe brains, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (“the Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap,
Inc. ...After 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.
...
2024-07-04 - Case Details
The Respondent is Belize Domain WHOIS Service Lt, City of Belmopan, Belize.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Intercosmos Media Group 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”).
...
2008-09-12 - Case Details
Respondent is Ryan N Roth, prlnclpal.com, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Squarespace Domains
II, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Complainant operates its official website at the domain name .
The Domain Name was registered on March 7, 2024. The Domain Name does not resolve to a website.
...
2025-11-13 - Case Details
The Respondent is [Name Redacted], France.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Network
Solutions, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...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”).
...
2023-01-16 - Case Details
See for example, Twenty Ones Incorporated NY Corp. v. MP3 Zones, Use,
WIPO Case No. D2006-1553 (Use of the disputed domain name to attract Internet traffic to a website by deception, such as, where users are likely to confuse the domain name with the trademark of another, is not considered bona fide use).
...See Deutsche Lufthansa v. Acme Mail,
WIPO Case No. D2008-1580, where it was found that the disputed domain name was being used in bad faith by placing links for purposes of generating traffic and revenue due to the choice of domain name by the respondent in that case.
...
2016-02-11 - 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 Domain Name is also confusingly similar as trademark DECAT is reproduced in the Domain Name, except for the letter “T”, with the addition of the dictionary term “loisir”. ...
2019-04-26 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts rights in the trademark LAWCLOUD, as well as its trade name, and its domain
names. The Complainant submits that its trademark, trade name, and domain name, are integrally included
in the disputed domain name.
...page 3
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. The Complainant
argues that the disputed domain name “seems to be registered a personal name for which no demonstrable
link exists between the Respondent and the domain name registered”. ...
2023-02-27 - Case Details
The Respondent is JH Kang, Republic of Korea.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Spaceship, Inc. (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Respondent has not responded and the Panel is unable to conceive of any basis upon
which the Respondent could sensibly be said to have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the
disputed domain name (Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No.
D2000-0003).
The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain
name and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy have been fulfilled.
...
2023-10-24 - Case Details
The Complainant's use of the trademark precedes the registration of the disputed domain name as the date of creation of the disputed domain name is April 3, 2004 while the Complainant's domain name was created May 15, 2003.
...The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The disputed domain name appears to have been created with the purpose of selling the domain name and is clearly disrupting the Complainant's possibility of doing business via this corresponding domain name.
...
2009-01-08 - 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”).
...Moreover, the creation of impersonating
and misleading websites suggesting a connection to the Complainant and seeking sensitive personal
information is an indication of bad faith. See Arcelormittal SA v. Bienvenu Bikoumou, WIPO Case No.
D2023-2253; WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4.
Under Policy Paragraph 4(b)(ii), registration of domain names to prevent the owner of a trademark from
reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name is indicative of bad faith registration and use, provided
the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct. ...
2026-07-03 - Case Details
The Respondent is Tahir Irshad of Hong Kong, SAR of China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.
3. ...Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name be transferred to the Complainants.
John Katz QC
Sole Panelist
Dated: March 25, 2011
1 Mejeriforeningen Danish Dairy Board v. ...
2011-04-06 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
6.1 Preliminary Issues
A. Consolidation: Multiple Domain Name Registrants
The amended Complaint initiates disputes in relation to two nominally different domain name registrants
regarding five disputed domain names. ...As a standard requirement of domain name registration, this element is generally disregarded in
the comparison between a trademark and a domain name for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2022-12-16 - Case Details
The Respondent is Kevin Garvin, Garvin Insurance agency Inc, United States of America (“United States”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Sav.com, LLC (the
“Registrar”).
3. ...Rothnie
Sole Panelist
Date: August 25, 2025
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Phoenix Group Management Services Limited v. Kevin Garvin, Garvin Insurance agency Inc
Case No. D2025-2488
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. ...
2025-09-02 - Case Details