The Respondent is Admin Code, Code Originate Co., Ltd., Thailand.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...It further claims the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It argues that the registration and the use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent are in bad faith and, therefore, requests the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant accordingly.
...
2019-09-11 - Case Details
The Respondent is Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Thanh minh Dinh, Links45guide, Nigeria.
2. The Domain Name and 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”).
...
2022-03-23 - Case Details
The Respondent is Yosi Hasidim of 48 Hanesieim, Petah Tikva, il, 49550, Israel. The Respondent is unrepresented.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name the subject of the dispute is "hitachistore.com" first registered on November 26, 1999.
...The Complainant also contends that the Respondent cannot establish any rights or legitimate interest in the domain name. Further it is contended that the Respondent has registered the domain name wrongfully and reference is made to a number of other domain names registered by or associated with the Respondent.
...
2001-02-05 - Case Details
The Respondent is Domain Admin, Totaldomain Privacy Ltd, Panama.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a
PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).
3. .../Angelica Lodigiani/
Angelica Lodigiani
Sole Panelist
Date: November 27, 2023
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Clopay Corporation v. Domain Admin, Totaldomain Privacy Ltd
Case No. D2023-4107
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. ...
2023-12-06 - Case Details
The Respondent is Henry Henry, Hana Spa and Wellness Sdn Bhd (1231734-M), Malaysia.
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. ...There are no rights or legitimate interests held by the Respondent in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name nor does the Respondent have any authorization from the Complainant to register the Domain Name. ...
2019-07-09 - Case Details
The Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc., Panama / Gary Brown, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...The addition of a dictionary term (or terms) to a complainant’s mark does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity, see Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Henry Chan,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0056. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ONLYFANS Mark. ...
2021-05-06 - Case Details
The Respondent is WhoisGuard, Inc., Panama / citifxtrust citifxtrust , United Kingdom.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...The addition of a dictionary term (or terms) to a complainant’s mark is insufficient to dispel the confusing similarity, see Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Henry Chan,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0056. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CITIFX Mark. ...
2021-05-18 - Case Details
The Respondent is Name Redacted1, Nigeria.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with
GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaints 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”).
1 The Respondent appears to have used the name of a third party when registering the disputed domain name. ...
2024-01-22 - Case Details
The Respondent is Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States / Name Redacted.1
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Wild West Domains,
LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Domain Name is an intentional misspelling of the
Complainant’s trademark, adding a second “i” to the “hill” portion of the Domain Name.
...
2022-05-27 - Case Details
The Respondent is Beats of Daegu, Republic of Korea.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Megazone Corp., dba HOSTING.KR (the “Registrar”).
3. ...First, the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s name and trademark. Further, the Respondent linked the disputed domain name with a domain name parking service which shows sponsored links to websites advertising implants which are the exact goods for which the Complainant’s IMPLANTCAST mark is known. ...
2018-11-30 - Case Details
The Domain Name was registered on October 14, 2013, and the Domain Name and were registered on January 3, 2014.
...Many UDRP decisions have found that a domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark where the domain name incorporates the complainant’s trademark in its entirety. ...
2014-08-04 - Case Details
The Respondent is Volkan Turk of Istanbul, Turkey, and Doha, Qatar.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Register.com (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Discussion and Findings
It has been held in a number of cases that a genuine unilateral consent by the Respondent to a transfer of the disputed domain name provides a basis for an immediate order for transfer without consideration of the elements of paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP: see AXA SA v. ...
2011-03-10 - 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”).
...- Previous UDRP decisions have consistently held that use of a domain name for a purported fan website, which, in fact, generates revenue, cannot give rise to any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name...
2015-11-24 - Case Details
The Respondent is Okwuchukwu Emeghebo, Morberg solutions, Nigeria.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with OwnRegistrar, Inc. ...The Complainant also relies on the active MX records for the disputed domain name. An MX record is a
resource record in the domain name system specifying which email server is responsible for accepting email
on behalf of a domain name, and there is no need to assign MX records to a domain name if the registrant
does not intend to use the domain name to send and receive emails. ...
2024-05-17 - 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").
...B. Respondent
The Respondent submits that the domain name is not confusingly similar to the trademark SPEEDO and that he has rights and legitimate interests in respect of the domain name and that the domain name was not registered and is not being used in bad faith.
...
2003-08-05 - Case Details
The Respondent is Host Master, Transure Enterprise Ltd, United States (“Respondent”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Above.com, Inc. ...Scott Donahey
Sole Panelist
Date: March 25, 2022
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Blackbaud, Inc. v. Host Master, Transure Enterprise Ltd
Case No. D2022-0530
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. ...
2022-05-05 - Case Details
The Respondent is Nabiev Ravshan, Russian Federation.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Respondent appears to be a Russian individual. According to the WhoIs, the disputed domain name was registered in the name of the Respondent on January 29, 2021. The website under the disputed domain name is currently inactive. ...
2021-08-09 - Case Details
The Respondent is Stefan Durina, Turbado SE, Slovakia, self represented.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with NETIM SARL
(the “Registrar”).
3. ...See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v.
Chris McCrady, WIPO Case No. D2000-0429.
Accordingly the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark and
hence the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...
2023-02-07 - Case Details
Additionally, Domain Name No. 2 was registered through the same registrar as Domain
Name No. 3. Therefore, Domain Name No. 2 is clearly under the same common control as the same nine
Domain Names listed above...Moreover, Domain Name No. 8 is identical to Domain Name No. 11 listed in
paragraph 20 with the exception of the letter “s” at the end of the additional term “wrap”, and Domain Name
No. 10 is identical to Domain Name No. 12 listed in paragraph 20 with the exception of the letter “w” before
the additional term “promo”. ...
2022-06-10 - Case Details
See B & H Foto & Electronics Corp. v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. / Joseph Gross,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0842. The threshold for satisfying this first element is low and generally panels have found that fully incorporating the identical mark in a disputed domain name is sufficient to meet the threshold.
...D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Respondent has requested that the Panel make a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking in this proceeding. ...
2017-06-19 - Case Details