The Respondent is Yuying Liu, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Porkbun LLC (the
“Registrar”).
3. ...The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent is not
commonly known by the Domain Name and is not authorised by the Complainant. ...
2023-08-21 - Case Details
The Respondent is nina box, NINABOX INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, United Kingdom.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain
name is identical to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2024-03-18 - Case Details
Mr. Haught likewise has not registered the domain name in order to prevent Navision from "reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name." Mr. ...The Panel finds that the domain name is identical to Complainant’s marks NAVISION.
The addition of ".com.mx" in the domain name is irrelevant. ...
2003-04-30 - Case Details
The Panel finds that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name or a name
correspondent to the disputed domain name, “Neuron”, since December 2023. WIPO Overview 3.0, section
2.3. ...Scott Blackmer
Sole Panelist
Date: December 4, 2024
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Optimal Satcom, Inc. v. Leslie Grant, ESpace Networks, Inc
Case No. D2024-4309
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. ...
2024-12-09 - Case Details
Respondent is Jaxxon & Company, Inc., d/b/a Jaxxon Watches, U.S. / Brent Lofton, U.S.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com,
LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Domain Name was registered on August 3, 2020. The Domain Name resolves to a website at which
Respondent offers for sale Jaxxon watches. ...
2022-05-06 - Case Details
The Center verified that the complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Policy), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Rules), and the Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Supplemental Rules). ...It is, moreover, long established that the inactive or passive holding of a domain name can, under appropriate circumstances constitute bad faith "use" within the meaning of the Policy, see Telstra Corporation Ltd. v. ...
2001-04-24 - Case Details
The Respondent is aleyna cepci, Türkiye.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”).
3. ...At the time of filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name redirected users to a parking page where
the disputed domain name was listed for sale for USD 2,850.
5. ...
2024-12-10 - Case Details
The Respondent is Host Master, Transure Enterprise Ltd, United States of America (“USA”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Above.com, Inc. ...The Complainant
submits that the last part of the disputed domain name “acadey” is an invented word and has no conceptual
page 3
meaning so users will likely misread the disputed domain name to be the Complainant’s Mark, and,
therefore, read the disputed domain name as “academy”.
...
2022-12-12 - Case Details
The Complainant was the former owner of the disputed domain name and due to an unfortunate error the domain name was not timely renewed. When the Complainant tried to renew the disputed domain name, it was not possible because by then the current domain name owner – the Respondent – had registered the domain name.
5. ...Consequently, the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s MAPRIN trademark.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
...
2011-03-21 - Case Details
The Panel notes that the purchase of the related domain name , the submission of a Periodical Declaration to the Menemen Public Prosecutor’s Office and even the use of the Disputed Domain Name were made after the Complainant’s cease and desist letter, which the Panel considers, under paragraph 4 (c) (i) of the Policy, as “a notice of the dispute” (see Retecasa SpA v. ...Concerning the Respondents’ use of the Disputed Domain Name, the Panel notes that the Respondents are incorrect in asserting that they started using the Disputed Domain Name “just after a few days following the purchase of the said domain name”.
...
2008-06-11 - Case Details
The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain
name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...Leppink
Sole Panelist
Date: May 1, 2025
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Unico A/S v. Robles Technology, Kingsley Robles
Case No. D2025-1272
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. ...
2025-05-20 - Case Details
The Respondent is rong qi, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc. ...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”).
...
2023-04-13 - Case Details
The Respondent is sushmita sharma, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <7plusconnect.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc.
...The
Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Name in these circumstances cannot represent a bona fide
offering of goods or services under paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy and cannot confer rights or legitimate
interests (Sistema de Ensino Poliedro Vestibulares Ltda., Editora Poliedro Ltda. v. ...
2024-01-15 - Case Details
The Respondent is Norman Shaaban of Beirut, Lebanon.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the "Registrar").
3. ...The Panel finds that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith and that the Respondent is also, by passively holding it under circumstances indicated in Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2015-12-01 - Case Details
The Respondent is Zhang Zhi Wei, Beijing, the People's Republic of China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.
3. ...The Center verified that 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”).
...
2009-05-18 - Case Details
The Respondent is Marc Lassiter, United States of America, represented by Mandelbaum Barrett PC, United
States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Sav.com, LLC (the
“Registrar”).
3. ...D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
The Respondent has requested a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH).
...
2024-10-14 - 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”).
...The Complainant refers to the decision in IG Group Limited v. Michael Smith / Domain Privacy Service FBO Registrant,
WIPO Case No. D2015-1723, in which it was found that the domain name , registered on the same day by the first Respondent, was confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade marks, that the Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name in that case and that that domain had been registered and was being used in bad faith. ...
2016-03-21 - Case Details
The Respondent is Autoscan Inc., with address in Peachtree City, Georgia, USA.
2. The Domain Name(s) and Registrar(s)
The disputed domain name is "trw.net".
The registrar of the disputed domain name is Network Solutions, Inc., with business address in Herndon, Virginia, USA.
3. ...The Panel’s Network Solutions’ WHOIS database search of April 23, 2000 indicated a July 9, 1987 date of registration for the domain name "trw.com".
2. See Educational Testing Service v. TOEFL, Case
No. D2000-0044, decided March 16, 2000.
3. ...
2000-04-26 - Case Details
The Respondent is Murphy Derek, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Gname.com Pte. ...KG v. Murphy Derek
Case No. D2025-2658
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2025-08-26 - Case Details
The Respondent is Akash Twiprasa, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Hosting Concepts
B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu. ...The Respondent, having no connection with the Complainant, unauthorisedly registered the Domain Name, a
domain name substantially identical to the Complainant’s HARPER’S BAZAAR registered trade mark and
identical to the Complainant’s domain name save for the addition of the “.co” ccTLD
identifier. ...
2025-02-24 - Case Details