Respondent is Benson and Partner Ltd of Houston, Texas, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with SIDN through webagentur.at internet services gmbh.
3. ...The website connected to the Domain Name is a pay per click site which according to Complainant further indicates the lack of legitimate interest of Respondent in the Domain Name. ...
2011-03-10 - 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. ...Domain Admin, TotalDomain Privacy Ltd
Case No. D2025-3436
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. ...
2025-10-15 - 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 disputed domain names have been pointed to webpages displaying only an inaccessible “cgi-bin” folder.
It is well established that passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under
certain circumstances as decided, i.a., in Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2023-04-18 - Case Details
See, for example, Chanel, Inc. v. Estco Technology Group,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0413.
Previous panels have expressed the opinion that a domain name that consists of a trade mark plus a geographic term is confusingly similar to the trade mark. ...An abbreviation of a registered trade mark incorporated into a domain name may be confusingly similar to the trade mark (see, for example, Dow Jones & Company, Inc. & Dow Jones LP v. ...
2010-01-26 - 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 Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, owns no trade mark registrations for the disputed domain name or any portion thereof, and has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name.
3. ...
2016-08-26 - Case Details
Respondent is Michael Scribner, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Complainant apparently complained to the Registrar of the disputed domain name
regarding the disputed domain name and thereafter the disputed domain name did not, and currently does
not, resolve to an active website or page.
5. ...
2025-02-07 - Case Details
The addition of certain words, as here, can increase confusing similarity. See, e.g. Yellow Corporation v. MIC,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0748 ("when a domain name is registered which is a well-known trademark in combination with another word, the nature of the other word will largely determine the confusing similarity"). Here, because the words "water" and "artesian water" are associated with Complainants' products, these words increase the confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and Complainant's EVA trademark. See, e.g. Gateway Inc. v. Domaincar,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0604 (finding the domain name confusingly similar to the trademark GATEWAY because the domain name contained "the central element of the Complainant's GATEWAY Marks, plus the descriptive word for the line of goods and services in which the Complainant conducts its business").
...
2014-10-20 - Case Details
G. was the named respondent in a proceeding involving the disputed domain name (Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Jo Y.G.,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1510).
Respondent 3 (“DomainCA - Whois Protect Service”) is the registrar for the disputed domain name, and was named as a respondent because it provided an anonymous registration service for Respondent 2 in connection with the disputed domain name. ...Further, the disputed domain name is merely linked to a domain name parking service, from which the Respondent is receiving improper revenue.
...
2009-10-06 - Case Details
The Respondent is Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Jeff Hink, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...The disputed domain name currently resolves to an inactive page.
The disputed domain name was registered on August 18, 2021.
5. ...
2021-12-22 - Case Details
Allen
Bargfrede, U.S.
Respondent is Platinum Home, U.S.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...Gibson
Sole Panelist
Date: January 5, 2026
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Insurify, Inc. v. Platinum Home
Case No. D2025-4779
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2026-01-12 - 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”).
...With reference to the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the Complainant asserts that:
i) the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to it in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;
ii) the disputed domain name is used by two UK competitors of the Complainant, Argenthal & Co Limited and Argenthal Private Capital Limited;
iii) the Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name and has no trademark or service mark rights;
iv) the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
...
2015-06-16 - Case Details
The Respondent is Edward Cullen, Crescite Innovation Corporation, United States of America (“United
States”), self -represented.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...case=D2025-2240
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
AXA SA v. Edward Cullen, Crescite Innovation Corporation
Case No. D2025-2329
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. ...
2025-08-07 - Case Details
The Respondent is Ahmed Syed, AdvertisingPulse, India (hereinafter, “Respondent”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is
registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint (hereinafter, “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”).
...
2022-03-16 - Case Details
The Respondent is Jennifer Kaiser of Bad Birnbach, Germany.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).
3. ...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”).
...
2018-03-02 - Case Details
The Respondent is Hendra Hendra, P.T Asli Rancangan Indonesia, Indonesia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.
While the disputed domain name consists of two common terms, the nature of the website at the disputed
domain name, including a close copy of the Complainant’s logo, shows that the Respondent registered the
disputed domain name with the purpose of illicitly targeting the Complainant. ...
2025-09-15 - Case Details
Respondent is Ralph Moran, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (hereinafter “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with
Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Nodine
Sole Panelist
Date: February 28, 2025
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Frankie Shop LLC v. Ralph Moran
Case No. D2025-0126
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2025-03-10 - Case Details
Respondent is Tammy P Bailey, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...Steinhardt
Sole Panelist
Date: November 11, 2025
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Reggio Register Company, LLC v. Tammy P Bailey
Case No. D2025-3879
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
5. ...
2025-11-17 - Case Details
The Respondent is Visiotex S.A. with an address at 1250 Hallandale Blvd # 502, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33009, USA.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name at issue is . The domain name registrar is Network Solutions, Inc.
3. ...On February 7, 2001, the Center verified that the Complaint satisfies 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").
...
2001-03-30 - 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”).
...D2010-1110, have stated that the absence of use of a domain name is tantamount to use in bad faith, in that the domain name in question is being used in order to prevent the legitimate owner of the mark from registering it in a corresponding domain name.
...
2011-10-21 - Case Details
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