The Respondent is Inert Productions LLC, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Key-Systems GmbH (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Consequently, the Panel agrees with the Complainant that it is inconceivable that the Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name without actual knowledge of the Complainant’s rights in the trademark EUROFACTOR.
Finally, it is well established that the use of a domain name as part of a phishing scheme is sufficient evidence of bad faith registration and use under section 4(a)(iii) of the Policy (Accor v. ...
2020-01-03 - Case Details
The Respondent is Steve Regan, of CA 91946, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
2.1 The domain name at issue is ("the Domain Name").
2.2 The Registrar is Go Daddy Software Inc. ...v) The Respondent offered to return the Domain Name to the Complainant for $400.
b) The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trade mark used by the Complainant, namely, "Toyota of Glendale". ...
2002-10-08 - Case Details
The Respondent is WhoisSecure, United States of America (“United States”) / Okonkwo Obinna Emmanuel,
TechWrld, Nigeria.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with OwnRegistrar, Inc. ...Christie
Sole Panelist
Date: June 11, 2022
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Euronext N.V. v. WhoisSecure / Okonkwo Obinna Emmanuel, TechWrld
Case No. D2022-1333
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. ...
2022-06-23 - Case Details
The Respondent is CHARLES HONESTRAJ, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Hostinger Operations, UAB (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Complainant
The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer
of the disputed domain name.
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s GLOBANT prior trademarks, domain name and company name, the only difference between
the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name being the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”)
“.site”; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and, the
fact that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s renowned trademarks, combined with
the passive holding of the disputed domain name and the use of a privacy shield service when registering
the disputed domain name, show the Respondent’s bad faith in registering and using the disputed domain
name.
...
2025-08-05 - Case Details
The Respondent is Billington Bolt, Wolverhampton, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Easyspace.
3. ...The Respondent’s bad faith is further demonstrated by its inaction, its passive holding of the domain name to the exclusion of the Complainant. Since registration of the domain name in issue, the domain name has directed users to a website advertising the services of the registrar with which the domain name in issue is registered. ...
2008-10-02 - Case Details
The Respondent is Muslum Degin of Bursa, Turkey, self-represented.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...v) The Respondent’s contention that it registered the disputed domain name with the intention to install a system to earn forex money is not credible. ...
2019-02-26 - 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”).
...While the Respondent’s failure to file a Response does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the
Complainant, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s default (see, e.g., Verner
Panton Design v. Fontana di Luce Corp, WIPO Case No. D2012-1909)
Substantive Matters
In order to succeed in respect of each Disputed Domain Name the Complainant is required to show for the
Dispute Domain Name in question that all three of the elements set out under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy
are present. ...
2025-07-25 - Case Details
In other words, it is important to ensure fairness to the parties and the maintenance of an inexpensive and expeditious avenue for resolving domain name disputes. (Whirlpool Corporation, Whirlpool Properties, Inc. v. Hui'erpu (HK) electrical appliance co. ltd.,
WIPO Case No. ...Thus, the consensus view is that paragraph 4(c) shifts the burden of production to the respondent to come forward with evidence of a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, once the complainant has made a prima facie showing. See, e.g., Document Technologies, Inc. v. ...
2018-05-04 - Case Details
The Respondent is Aqua Diamond of Los Angeles, California, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Melbourne IT Ltd.
3. ...Neither has the Respondent provided any evidence on which it could be said that the offering of his competing goods at the website to which the disputed domain name resolves can be a use in the bona fide offering of his goods. In Harvey Norman Retailing Pty Ltd v gghome.com Pty Ltd,
WIPO Case No. ...
2011-09-13 - Case Details
The Respondent is Askmysite.Com LLC of Cresskill, New Jersey, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with eNom, Inc. (the “Registrar”).
3. ...See Telstra Corporation Limited. v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, and numerous subsequent decisions holding that the passive holding of a domain name may be considered use for the purpose of determining whether a domain name were used in bad faith.
...
2011-08-23 - Case Details
The Respondent is Lazarro Amante, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a
PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).
3. ...v. Lazarro Amante
Case No. D2023-4075
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History...
2023-11-03 - Case Details
The Respondent is 张鑫, Hong Kong, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name entirely reproduces the Complainant’s CLARINS
trademark, trade name and prior domain name, which is sufficient to establish confusing similarity.
...
2025-06-26 - Case Details
Kelvin Dou, Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
1.3 The Respondent is not represented.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
2.1 The domain name at issue (the "domain name") is .
2.2 The Registrar is Register.com.
3. ...The Complainant believes that it has therefore developed a strong degree of trade mark recognition for these marks;
(iii) the domain name is so obviously connected with the Complainant and its products that use by someone with no connection with the Complainant suggests opportunistic bad faith;
(iv) the Respondent registered the domain name long after the Complainant’s adoption and first use of the LAMPE BERGER mark in Asia, and particularly Hong Kong;
(v) the Complainant’s mark is well known and bad faith may be presumed where a domain name consists wholly or partly of the famous trademark of a third party;
(vi) the fame and reputation of the name LAMPE BERGER coupled with Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complainant’s letter and the passive website, shows bad faith;
(vii) the passive holding of the domain name amounts to bad faith as inaction is within the concept of use in bad faith;
(viii) it is not possible to conceive of any use of the domain name that would be legitimate.
6. ...
2002-12-11 - 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 request as a remedy the transfer of the domain names and and the cancellation of the domain name .
...
2012-12-05 - Case Details
The Domain Name was registered on January 16, 2017, in the name of "Marcin Rulnicki".
4.5 Each of the Domain Names has been used as part of an email address in "phishing" emails sent to employees of the Complainants. ...The hope of the fraudster is that the recipient of that email will not notice these minor differences.
6.14 There is no right or legitimate interest in holding a domain name for the purpose of furtherance of a fraud through impersonation. Further, the registration and use of a domain name for such a purposes involves registration and use in bad faith (see, for example, Vestey Group Limited v. ...
2017-04-21 - Case Details
The Complainant also states that it owns some 5,000 domain names containing the term “Lego” including
the domain name registered on August 22, 1995.
...Such behavior further suggests a
bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain names. See Intel Corporation v. The Pentium Group,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0273 (“The incorporation of a well-known trademark into a domain name by a
registrant having no plausible explanation for doing so may be, in and of itself, an indication of bad faith.”);
and Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondée en 1772 v. ...
2023-04-13 - Case Details
The Respondent is P D S AB, a corporation organized under the laws of Sweden, having its principal place of business at Luntmakaregatan 12, Stockholm, Sweden.
2. The Domain Name(s) and Registrar(s)
The domain name at issue is , which domain name is registered with Network Solutions, Inc. ...Cf. Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, Case
No. D2000-0003.
Consequently, all the prerequisites for cancellation or transfer of the domain name according to Paragraph 4 (i) of the Rules are fulfilled.
...
2000-04-17 - Case Details
The Respondent is Domain Admin, Hush Whois Protection Ltd., Seychelles.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Key-Systems GmbH (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The disputed domain name was registered on January 27, 2013.
According to the evidence submitted with the Complaint, the disputed domain name does not resolve to an
active website.
5. ...
2024-12-17 - 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”).
...On or after these registration dates, the Respondent came into possession of the disputed domain names. All disputed domain names resolve to a domain name parking platform, which provides various advertising links.
5. ...
2021-06-23 - Case Details
The Respondent is John Henry, United Kingdom (“UK”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with IONOS SE (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Respondent is not commonly known under the disputed domain name and the disputed domain name is
not being used for a bona fide offering of goods or services; rather the inherently misleading disputed
domain name is passively held by the Respondent. ...
2025-04-17 - Case Details