The Respondent is Alan Hoshino, Bellevue, Washington, United States of America,
unrepresented.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name, is registered with Tucows,
Toronto, Canada.
3. ...Respondent points out that it registered
the disputed domain name in 1994 – when Complainant did not yet have a
website. Respondent also asserts that his use of the disputed domain name as
an e-mail address is a legitimate use under the precedent of Aspen Grove
Inc., v. ...
2006-04-25 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Since the Respondent’s Domain Name differs from the Complainant’s marks only by the addition of the now common "E-", there is considerable likelihood of confusion of the Domain Name with the Complainant’s business. ...No explanation has been offered even informally of how the registered Name and Website would be used for a non-confusing purpose.
7. Decision
The Panelist decides, in accordance with the Uniform Domain Name Resolution Policy, Paragraph 4:
(i) that the domain name in dispute is confusingly similar to the registered trade and service marks of the Complainant;
(ii) that the Respondents has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2000-07-03 - Case Details
Respondent is Gavin Basuel, 1G Media, United States / Moneer Marouf, Obsidian Studio Corporation,
United States.
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 Complaint satisfied the formal
requirements of the .IO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the Rules for .IO Domain
Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .IO Domain Name
Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
...
2022-09-23 - Case Details
Respondent is Ipsos Market, ipsosmarketsurvey, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Google LLC (the
“Registrar”).
3. ...The Domain Name
incorporates the trademark IPSOS in its entirety, with the addition of the term “market. Many UDRP panels
have found that a disputed domain name is confusingly similar where the relevant trademark is recognizable
within the disputed domain name. ...
2023-09-12 - Case Details
The Respondent is Ellen Willy-Herma of Uithoorn, Netherlands.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with .NU Domain Ltd. ...On March 21, 2013, the Center received an email communication from the technical contact of the disputed domain name indicating the disputed domain name had been cancelled. On the same day, the Center sent an email communication to the Registrar regarding the status of the disputed domain name. ...
2013-05-07 - Case Details
The Respondent is Robert Gozdowski of Warszawa, Poland.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Tucows Inc .
3. ...According to the prevailing opinion of numerous UDRP panels, in some circumstances so-called “passive holding” of a domain name can be treated as its being used in bad faith. The leading case in this regard is Telstra Corporative Limited v. ...
2008-03-27 - 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 addition of the term “my” or the letter “v” does not obviate the confusing similarity. The Disputed Domain Name adds an “m” in the middle of the Disputed Domain Name, but this is plainly intended to exploit typo mistakes and is still confusingly similar.
...
2020-07-14 - 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”).
...These are conjunctive requirements; both must be satisfied for a successful complaint: see, e.g., 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.
...
2019-03-11 - Case Details
The Respondent is wu ming bao, Cambodia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Gname.com Pte. ...The Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, is not commonly
known by the disputed domain name and is not authorised by the Complainant. ...
2025-02-26 - Case Details
The Respondent is RegionCo,
33311 Guetersloh, Berlin, Berlin 33311, Germany.
2. Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name at issue
is ; hereinafter referred to as the "Domain Name".
...However, it is not necessary for the Complainant to prove a positive action
in bad faith by the Respondent in relation to the Domain Name. As can be inferred
from the circumstances identified in Paragraph 4(b)(i)–(iii) passive holding
of a Domain Name after its registration may under certain circumstances constitute
bad faith use (see Telstra Corporation Limited. v. ...
2001-09-07 - Case Details
The Respondent is Zhenya Du of Hong Kong, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Chicago Pneumatic Tool Company LLC v. Texas International Property Associates- NA NA,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0144.
As sustained by the Complainant, there is no evidence in the present case that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, enabling it to establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name . ...
2019-02-05 - 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”).
...In line with the opinion of numerous
UDRP panels before (Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003)
and section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, the Panel believes that the non-use of a domain name does not
prevent a finding of bad faith use.
...
2022-12-23 - Case Details
On June 12, 2000, Complainant forwarded a cease and desist letter to Respondent requesting, inter alia, transfer of the subject domain names to Complainant. Respondent has refused to respond to this letter or to cooperate with Complainant to resolve this domain name dispute.
Based on the above information, the Panel concludes that Respondent registered the subject domain names in bad faith as defined in Paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy. The circumstances make clear that Respondent registered the domain names for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registrations to Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name.
...
2001-01-23 - 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”).
...This test typically involves a side-by-side comparison of the domain name and the textual
components of the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the domain name.
...
2023-04-17 - Case Details
The Respondent is Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org, United States of America / yulin zhu, Philippines.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The addition of a dictionary term to a complainant’s mark does not 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 PLIVA Mark.
...
2021-04-13 - Case Details
The Respondent is Domain Admin, Privatewhois biz, Turkey / Mustafa Dindar, Turkey.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Reg2C.com 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”).
...
2019-07-29 - Case Details
The Respondent is Name Redacted1 .
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Ligne Web Services SARL (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Andrea Mondini
Sole Panelist
Date: January 10, 2019
1 The Panel has decided to redact the name of the named Respondent, adopting the criterion of the panel in Banco Bradesco S.A. v. ...
2019-01-15 - Case Details
Respondent is Timothy Dunce, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap,
Inc. ...The Domain Name was registered on August 1, 2023. The Domain Name at the time of the Decision does
not resolve to an active website. ...
2023-10-03 - Case Details
Griffin Sr., Griffin IT Media, inc., United States, represented by Intellectual Property Consulting, LLC, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with eNom, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...See Kabushiki Kaisha Hitachi Seisakusho (d/b/a Hitachi Ltd) v. Arthur Wrangle,
WIPO Case No. D2005-1105. The use of the generic Top-Level (“gTLD”) “.com” does not impact the assessment whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. ...
2021-08-26 - Case Details
Respondent is Top Business Names, Domain Administrator of West Bay, Grand Cayman (KY), Guatemala.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Rebel.com Corp.
3. ...Complainant
Complainant argues that when its HUNKEMÖLLER trademarks, trade name and domain name are compared with the disputed domain name there is no doubt that the signs are confusingly similar.
...
2011-04-15 - Case Details