v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale, WIPO Case No. D2000-0662). The Panel concludes that, in this case,
the disputed domain name contains the entirety of the Complainant’s trademark for THYSSENKRUPP, which
remains easily recognizable, and the disputed domain name is therefore confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s THYSSENKRUPP marks. ...It is clear to the Panel from the foregoing elements that the
Respondent is not acting as a good faith provider of goods or services under the disputed domain name (see
Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903) and that there are also no other
apparent circumstances indicating or conferring any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain
name on the Respondent. ...
2023-05-23 - Case Details
The Respondent is li xiao dong, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Gname.com Pte. ...In this regard, the Panel finds
that holding a domain name passively, without making any use of it, does not confer any rights or legitimate
interests in the disputed domain name on the Respondent under the circumstances of this case (see in this
regard earlier UDRP decisions such as Bollore SE v. ...
2024-07-17 - Case Details
Ims of Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”)
is registered with TLDs, Inc. dba SRSplus.
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”).
...
2004-08-26 - Case Details
The Respondent is Jeremy Paul Cleaver, Wangaratta, Victoria, Australia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Melbourne IT trading as Internet Names Worldwide.
3. ...The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in relation to the disputed domain name.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
It is for the Complainant to establish, at least prima facie that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed name (Croatia Airlines d.d. v. ...
2007-11-20 - Case Details
The Respondent is Kang Seung Hui (강승희), Republic of Korea.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <레고.shop> [xn--299ao5s.shop] is registered with Gabia, Inc. ...c) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant claims that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. ...
2021-06-08 - Case Details
The website to which this disputed domain name points allows the First Respondent to offer the disputed domain name for sale for at least USD 2,000. ...The UDRP panel decisions and applicable principles for multiple respondents are usefully reviewed in Speedo Holdings B.V. v. Programmer, Miss Kathy Beckerson, John Smitt, Matthew Simmons,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0281.
Paragraph 10(e) is a wider provision than paragraph 3(c) as it authorizes consolidation even where multiple domain name disputes do not involve the same domain name holder. ...
2014-02-18 - Case Details
The Respondent is Host Master, Njalla Okta LLC, Saint Kitts and Nevis.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. ...Similarly, in Gannett Co., Inc. v. Privacy Service Provided by Witheld for
Privacy ehf / Sameul Sanders, Sam LCC, WIPO Case No. D2022-1233, the disputed domain name was
used in a spear phishing campaign impersonating a company officer, and the Panel concluded that such use
constituted bad faith under the Policy.
...
2025-10-16 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has shown that it is the owner of the well-known trademark TYREPLUS. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s mark in its entirety.
In Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. ...For example, in Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, the Panel held that “[…] the concept of a domain name "being used in bad faith" is not limited to positive action. ...
2013-10-03 - Case Details
Das Zentrum stellte fest, dass die Beschwerde den formellen Anforderungen der Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (der „Richtlinie“), der Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (der „Verfahrensordnung“) und der WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (der „Ergänzenden Verfahrensregeln“) genügt.
...Entscheidungsgründe
Nach Punkt 4 (a) der Richtlinie muss die Beschwerdeführerin nachweisen, dass
(i) der Domain Name identisch oder verwechselbar ähnlich zu Marken ist, an welchen die Beschwerdeführerin Rechte hat; und
(ii) die Beschwerdegegnerin kein Recht oder berechtigtes Interesse in Bezug auf den Domain Namen hat; und
(iii) der Domain Name bösgläubig registriert wurde und genutzt wird.
...
2011-11-18 - Case Details
The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The addition of a generic term to a complainant’s mark is insufficient to dispel the impression of confusing similarity, see Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Henry Chan,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0056. An individual viewing the Domain Name may be confused into thinking that the Domain Name refers to a site in some way connected to the Complainant. ...
2020-02-03 - Case Details
The Respondent is Jurgen Neeme, Estonia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Burn World-Wide, Ltd. d/b/a BGT Partners v. Banta Global Turnkey Ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0470.
Generally speaking, a finding that a domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith requires an inference to be drawn that the respondent in question has registered and is using the disputed domain name to take advantage of its significance as a trademark owned by (usually) the complainant.
...
2021-09-16 - Case Details
It has been stated in several decisions by prior WIPO UDRP panels that
typosquatting can be sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical
or confusingly similar to a registered trademark. See as examples, Daimler
Chrysler Corporation v. Worshipping, Chrisler, and Chr. aka Dream Media and
aka Peter Conover, WIPO Case No. D2000-1272
and Telstra Corporation Ltd. v. Warren Bolton Consulting Pty Ltd, WIPO
Case No. D2000-1293.
It has also been established by prior panels that incorporating a trademark in its entirety into a domain name can be sufficient to establish that the domain name is confusingly similar to a registered trademark. ...
2006-08-02 - Case Details
The Respondent is Sumit Kumar, Ablock Inc. of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, United States of America (“United States”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (“Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...This case is similar to the case of Option One Mortgage Corporation v. Option One Lending,
WIPO Case No. D2004-1052, involving the domain name . In that case the then respondent was offering mortgage lending services under the name “Option One” which was the then complainant’s name and was a registered trademark for precisely the services that the then respondent sought to offer. ...
2018-04-03 - Case Details
The publicly available WhoIs data for the domain name registrant does not support any finding by the Panel that the Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name.
...The evidence accompanying the Complaint is that the disputed domain name is not in use. Accordingly, there is no bona fide offering of goods or services by reference to the disputed domain name, nor is there a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
...
2018-05-25 - Case Details
that Complainant has failed to prove that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith as well as that the Domain Name was registered for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registration to Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name. ...Nothing in this decision shall prevent Complainant from filing another complaint if the factual basis of the case should change in the future, e.g. if Respondent starts to use the Domain Name in any way contradicting the Policy (Grove Broadcasting Co. Ltd v. Telesystems Communications Limited, WIPO Case No. ...
2001-02-12 - Case Details
The Respondent is Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States of America / 德胜 李, Hong Kong, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC
(the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy by virtue of having made out an unrebutted
prima facie case (WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 2.1).
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Domain Name has been used to impersonate the Complainant; this much is clear from the use of the
Complainant’s identical logo on the Domain Name’s website (Migros-Genossenschafts-Bund v. ...
2022-10-10 - Case Details
D2000-0255.
6.4 As to the domain name , the Panel does not find that the name is confusingly similar to the trademark of Complainant. ...The Panel therefore finds that Respondent has rights to and legitimate interests in respect of this domain name. If Respondent actually intends to establish the business that he professes it is his desire to establish, this domain name is a sufficient vehicle. ...
2001-08-01 - Case Details
In The Ritz Hotel, Limited v. Damir Kruzicevic,
WIPO Case No. D2005-1137, the panel stated that: "the domain name incorporates the RITZ mark in its entirety. ...In Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. Gipol Kaip,
WIPO Case No. D2016-0906, the panel stated that "the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a website – the disputed domain name does not resolve to a functioning website … Previous UDRP panels have held that non-use of a disputed domain name for a website, i.e., 'passive holding', constitutes bad faith."
...
2018-04-06 - Case Details
There is also scope for similarity and confusion to arise in typing
given that the letter ‘v’ is beside the letter ‘b’ on a standard keyboard. This
leads to the very real possibility of the domain name being mistyped as .
...D2000-0587 and Edmunds.com, Inc v WWWEDMUNDS.com and DMUNDS.com,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0937. In relation to the disputed
domain name that was transferred to Respondent Iskra Service, see also Miles
D., Ltd dba Jazz Alley v. ...
2002-01-30 - Case Details
See Sportswear Company S.P.A.
v. Tang Hong, WIPO Case No. D2014-1875.
The Respondent does not have any legitimate interests in the use of the disputed domain name. ...The Respondent has hence failed to make use of this disputed domain name’s website
and has not demonstrated any attempt to make legitimate use of the disputed domain name and website,
which evidences a lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, as confirmed by
numerous past UDRP panels, such as Philip Morris USA Inc. v. ...
2023-09-28 - Case Details