Respondent is Evelyn Rutherford, Canada.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Amazon Registrar, Inc.
...In addition, Complainant runs since 1996 a website using the domain name .
The Domain Name was registered on September 18, 2024.
The Domain Name does not resolve to an active website. ...
2024-11-19 - 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 disputed domain name bears a “creation date” of January 11, 2000. According to the Registrar, the disputed domain name was transferred to the Respondent on February 22, 2008.
...
2017-11-09 - Case Details
The Respondent is Steven Chaser, U.S.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with
Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Isenberg
Sole Panelist
Date: November 27, 2023
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc. v. Steven Chaser
Case No. D2023-4332
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2023-12-06 - Case Details
The Respondent is Osmo Anttalainen, Espoo, Finland.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with OnlineNic, Inc. d/b/a China-Channel.com.
3. ...It has been held in previous proceedings that damage to goodwill via use of a domain name can be considered an additional circumstance evidencing bad faith. See e.g Fibox Oy Ab v. Ville Muilu,
WIPO Case No. ...
2008-12-01 - Case Details
The Respondent is Salvia Corporation, of Riga, Latvia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with DSTR Acquisition VII, LLC d/b/a Dotregistrar.com.
3. ...In accordance with ACCOR v. Tigertail Partners,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0625, the Panel finds it reasonable to conclude, and does so conclude, that only someone who was familiar with the NECKERMANN trademarks could have registered the Domain Name. ...
2007-09-27 - Case Details
The Respondent is Sunday Brodon, United States of America (“United States”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with
Center of Ukrainian Internet Names (UKRNAMES) (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Furthermore, the use of hyphens in the Disputed Domain Name is irrelevant in a finding of confusing
similarity, see e.g. Royale Indian Rail Tours Limited v. ...
2023-12-12 - Case Details
The Respondent is Artur Kezano, 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 above trademarks and domain name were registered prior to the registration of the disputed domain
name, which was registered on July 23, 2023.
...
2023-11-27 - 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”).
...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 UDRP panels have found that fully incorporating the identical mark in a disputed domain name is sufficient to meet the threshold.
...
2018-08-06 - Case Details
Group One Holdings Pte Ltd v. Steven Hafto
WIPO Case No. D2017-0183.
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.
...Rothnie
Sole Panelist
Date: October 5, 2024
1 Citing an article published in 2015 by GQ magazine.
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Nimiq Labs Ltd v. Yonatan Ben Shimon, 1XHUB Ltd
Case No. D2024-2772
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. ...
2024-10-11 - Case Details
The Respondent is Luca Koertig of Admannshagen, Germany.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with SIDN through PDR Ltd.
3. ...The Complainant is the former holder of the Domain Name, but failed to renew the Domain Name in time.
The Respondent does not use the Domain Name for business activities in the furniture manufacturing industry. ...
2018-11-16 - Case Details
The Respondent is Domain Ecommerce, United Kingdom.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...Furthermore, the disputed domain name used to contain a button with the text “Want To Secure This
domain? – Click Here”. When clicking the button Internet users were redirected to a website where the
disputed domain name was listed for sale for USD 4,999, with instructions to email the Respondent if
interested in purchasing the disputed domain name. ...
2024-09-30 - Case Details
The Respondent is AKRAM UL MEHMOOD, United Arab Emirates, self-represented.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...case=D2017-0183
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Property Finder IP Holding Limited v. AKRAM UL MEHMOOD
Case No. DME2025-0005
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2025-06-27 - Case Details
Seefeld is well acquainted with Complainant and
its founder, Mr. Laszlo Birinyi.
(v) Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on October 5, 1998, shortly
after a quarrel between Mr. ...In fact, the offering of a domain name for sale to the owner of
a trademark that is identical to or confusingly similar to the domain name for
more than the cost to register and possibly maintain that domain name is evidence
of bad faith.
...
2001-07-17 - Case Details
The Respondent is Premium Domain Names S.L. of Spain, internally-represented.
2. The Domain Name, Registry and Registrar
The Registry of the disputed domain name is the European Registry for Internet Domains
(“EURid” or the “Registry”). ...Prior panels have held that the registration of a domain name for the purpose of sale may, in certain
circumstances, give rise to legitimate interest in that domain name on the part of the registrant; see Banca
Monte dei Paschi di Siena S.p.A. v. ...
2025-02-12 - 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 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. Language requirements should not lead to undue burdens being placed on the parties and undue delay to the proceeding (Whirlpool Corporation, Whirlpool Properties, Inc. v. ...
2013-08-30 - Case Details
Identical or confusingly
similar Domain Name: Policy 4(a)(i)
The Domain Name at issue
is . Complainant is the holder of the registered trademark
"UNIBET" and alleges that the disputed Domain Name is confusingly
similar to this trademark, save for the TLD ending ".com".
...As rightly stated in Infinity2
Incorporated v. Total Health Wellness, NAF Claim Nr. FA0094867,
"the purpose of UDRP Subparagraph 4(c)(i) is to exclude from the UDRP process
cases of entities who use or prepare to use a Domain Name without knowledge
that their doing so was or would be disputed." ...
2001-12-24 - 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
page 2
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 requests the consolidation of the Complaint against the multiple
disputed domain name registrants pursuant to paragraph 10(e) of the Rules.
The disputed domain name registrants did not comment on the Complainant’s request.
...
2026-04-01 - Case Details
Until approximately December 4, 2017, the disputed domain name was owned by Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0131203323. By March 1, 2018, the disputed domain name was owned by Contact Privacy Inc. ...The disputed domain name was registered on March 6, 2011. Complaint, Annex 1. Until approximately February 17, 2017, the disputed domain name was owned by Contact Privacy Inc. ...
2020-01-28 - 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”).
...The Complainant also contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. More specifically, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name in question, and that the Respondent's use thus far in connection with a domain name parking service cannot constitute a bona fide use.
...
2008-11-27 - Case Details
The Respondent is Ho Nim of Shanghai the People's Republic of China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Above.com, Inc.
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”).
...
2010-07-29 - Case Details