The Respondent is ranjan kumar ram, technext technosoft pvt. ltd.of Ddurgapur, West Bengal, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with BigRock Solutions Pvt Ltd. ...Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant must show 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. ...
2015-10-22 - Case Details
Customer 1246827457 / Gopal Yadav, Onineaudiotraining, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Google LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Edmunds.com, Inc. v. Digi Real Estate Foundation,
WIPO Case No. D2006-1043. Furthermore, the addition of the applicable Top-Level Domain in a domain name is viewed as a standard registration requirement and is disregarded under the confusing similarity test. ...
2020-06-09 - 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”).
...The Complainant requests the consolidation of the disputes against the multiple
disputed domain name registrants pursuant to paragraph 10(e) of the Rules.
The disputed domain name registrants did not comment on the Complainant’s request.
...
2025-07-09 - Case Details
The Respondent is Archer Daniels, Archer DAniels Midlands, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Hostinger Operations, UAB (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed
domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2025-11-20 - Case Details
Group One Holdings Pte Ltd v. Steven Hafto
WIPO Case No. D2017-0183.
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.
...Rothnie
Sole Panelist
Date: October 5, 2024
1 Citing an article published in 2015 by GQ magazine.
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Nimiq Labs Ltd v. Yonatan Ben Shimon, 1XHUB Ltd
Case No. D2024-2772
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. ...
2024-10-11 - Case Details
The Respondent is IndiGO Networks of Nassau, Bahamas.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”), is registered with Wild West Domains, Inc (the “Registrar”).
3. ...“Reverse Domain Name Hijacking” is defined in paragraph 1(1) of the Rules as “using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name”.
...
2008-01-09 - 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”).
...Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity like passing off
and impersonation, as it is the case here, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent.
...
2025-06-30 - Case Details
The Respondent is Zach Segal of Naples, Florida, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name, (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc. ...The fact that it might not have been the Respondent who has derived the gain is not relevant for this purpose (Villeroy & Boch AG v. Mario Pingerna,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1912).
The fact that the Respondent offered to sell the Domain Name to the Complainant when the Complainant's United States subsidiary made email contact with the Respondent is a matter to be weighed in the scales, but is not conclusive of abusive intent at time of registration of the Domain Name. ...
2009-08-18 - Case Details
On the other hand, the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name, or any name that is similar to the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Complainant is of the opinion that the Respondent had knowledge about VICMAN and knowingly incorporated Complainant’s name in the domain name to prevent the Complainant from using its name in a corresponding domain name or to sell, rent, or otherwise transfer the domain name registration to the Complainant or to its competitor for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name, an unscrupulous practice known as “cyber-squatting.”
...Accordingly, the Complainant further submits that the Respondent uses the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Finally, Complainant directs the Panels attention
to the fact that the Respondent has previously registered domain names that
are identical or similar to registered marks; See Croatia Airlines d.d, v.
...
2006-04-21 - Case Details
The Respondent is Joney Singhal, K4 Media & Technologies LLP, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case
that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In particular, this Panel
agrees with earlier panel views that the use of a disputed domain name to offer unauthorized downloading
from Instagram cannot constitute any legitimate or fair use (see Meta Platforms, Inc. v. ...
2024-10-03 - Case Details
Respondent is Chamberlin Chiropractic Corporation, 55 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA,
USA ("Chamberlin").
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name in issue is "sportscare.com". The registrar is Network Solutions, Inc.
3. ...The Center verified that the complaint satisfies the formal requirements of the ICANN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Policy), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Rules), the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Supplemental Rules). ...
2000-09-22 - Case Details
Respondent is VV Brands, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...Respondent registered the disputed domain name on
April 7, 2025, and at some point thereafter started to use the disputed domain name for a website with the
name “Scholastic Publisher” providing self-publishing services. ...
2025-08-08 - Case Details
The Respondent is CERBALLIANCE SUD1, France.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...Complainant
The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its earlier trademarks; that
the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests therein; that the Respondent registered and
uses the disputed domain name in bad faith, being emphasized that the disputed domain name routes to a
pay-per-click page, that the Respondent declared a name that is identical to Complainant’s trademark and
uses the domain name as an e-mail address to impersonate a fictive Complainant’s employee in order to
mislead the Complainant’s business partners.
...
2022-11-07 - Case Details
The Respondent is Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Carolina Rodrigues,
Panama.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed
domain name, and has not made a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or
fair use of the disputed domain name; and
(c) The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. ...
2022-10-06 - Case Details
The Respondent is none, Software LLC, of Dolnoslakie, Poland.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Az.pl, Inc.
3. ...The disputed domain name is parked. Such use supports the Complainant's position that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.
...
2010-03-03 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Walgreen Co. v. Domain Privacy Service FBO Registrant / Name Redacted
Case No. D2017-1550
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Walgreen Co. of Deerfield, Illinois, United States of America (“United States” or “US”), represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.
...The Respondent has used (“the first disputed domain name”) to market pharmaceutical products. The website at the disputed domain name, (“the second disputed domain name”), resolves to a blank page.
5. ...
2017-10-10 - 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 Complainant says that the Respondent’s choice of a “.com” domain, rather than another domain name extension such as “.us” or another domain name such as “flyboard-america”, was done to cause confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks.
...
2013-01-25 - Case Details
The Complainant filed an
amended Complaint on November 14, 2022,
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”).
...Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant must show that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the
disputed domain names. The Respondent may establish a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain
names by demonstrating in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy any of the following:
“(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain
name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or
services; or
(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name,
even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial
gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.”
...
2023-01-06 - Case Details
There are several UDRP decisions stating that confusing similarity, for the purposes of the Policy, is established when a domain name wholly incorporates a complainant’s mark and only adds a generic word along with, in this case, the letter “a” or the number “1” (see i.e., Société del Hotels Méridien v. ...Moreover, the panel does not consider, when analyzing the identity or similarity, the suffix like in this case “.info” because it is a necessary component of the domain name and does not give any distinctiveness (see i.e., Crédit Industrile et Commercial SA v. Name Privacy,
WIPO Case No. ...
2007-07-25 - 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”).
...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The fact that the Respondent is now passively holding the domain names is evidence of bad faith. Telstra Corporation Ltd. v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No.�D2000-0003 (doing nothing with a domain name, “passive holding”, may amount to bad faith registration and use). ...
2006-02-15 - Case Details