The Respondent is Name Redacted.1
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...It is also clear that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name or a corresponding name and that it is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name.
...
2019-01-14 - 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”).
...In the case of the disputed domain name , the corresponding trademark of the Complainant
Fancade AB, DRIVE MAD, was not yet registered when the disputed domain name was registered on June
15, 2023. ...
2025-11-03 - Case Details
The Respondent is Julian Besprozvanny, Tallin, Tartumsa, Estonia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with EstDomains,
Inc.
3. ...The addition of the generic words “online” and “shop” does not remove the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the trademark in question.
As the Panel in Deutsche Telekom AG v. Timmy
Comeau, WIPO Case No. ...
2006-05-25 - Case Details
The Center verified that the Complaint together with 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”).
...During the alleged telephone discussion, Respondent said that he was selling the Domain Names to a non-profit entity who was filing legal claims against Complainant, and that Respondent had set the prices at USD 5,000 per Domain Name (plus USD 200 for the domain name).
...
2014-10-20 - Case Details
The Respondent is Beats of Daegu, Republic of Korea.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Megazone Corp., dba HOSTING.KR (the “Registrar”).
3. ...First, the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s name and trademark. Further, the Respondent linked the disputed domain name with a domain name parking service which shows sponsored links to websites advertising implants which are the exact goods for which the Complainant’s IMPLANTCAST mark is known. ...
2018-11-30 - 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”).
...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 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 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”).
...Furthermore, the Panel notes that the Respondent had previously been involved in numerous UDRP
disputes (including another case involving the Complainant: Haleon UK IP Limited v. shi lei, Shi Lei, WIPO
Case No. D2023-4704) which resulted in the transfer of the domain name to the complainant. ...
2024-04-29 - Case Details
The Respondent is Host Master, Transure Enterprise Ltd, United States (“Respondent”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Above.com, Inc. ...Scott Donahey
Sole Panelist
Date: March 25, 2022
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Blackbaud, Inc. v. Host Master, Transure Enterprise Ltd
Case No. D2022-0530
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. ...
2022-05-05 - Case Details
The Respondent is swarovskishop.co swarovskishop.co of Venice, Italy.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).
3. ...There are two reasons for this. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name as its company name or trade name cannot create a defense under paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy where the domain name was registered in bad faith. ...
2013-10-01 - Case Details
The Respondent is tong xiaonian, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”).
3. ...case=D2012-2123
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
JD SPORTS FASHION PLC v. tong xiaonian
Case No. D2025-3901
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2025-12-05 - Case Details
The Respondent is Brad Klepper, Drivers Legal Plan, Ltd., United States, represented by McAfee & Taft,
United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1; AXA SA v. Huade Wang, WIPO Case No.
D2022-1289.
On this point, the Complainant asserts that: (1) the Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant nor is
the Respondent otherwise authorized to use the ROAD LAW mark for any purpose, (2) the Respondent is
not commonly known by the disputed domain name, (3) “upon information and belief,” the Respondent is not
commonly known by the disputed domain name, and (4) the Respondent is not using the disputed domain
name with a bona fide offering of goods and services, but instead is using the disputed domain name to
redirect Internet users to its own website offering identical services for commercial gain.
...
2023-07-20 - Case Details
The Respondent is Matheus Henrique, CAMIL ALIMENTOS S.A. of São Paulo, Brazil.
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 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”).
...
2018-11-23 - Case Details
The Domain Name and trade marks are identical.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The mere registration of a domain name does not give the owner a right or a legitimate interest in respect of that domain name. ...In Drexel University v. David Brouda,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0067 the panel stated that “rights or legitimate interests cannot be created where the user of the domain name at issue would not choose such a name unless he was seeking to create an impression of association with the Complainant.” ...
2010-07-15 - Case Details
The Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, United States / Zayed, United Arab Emirates.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Dynadot, LLC (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”).
...
2020-01-09 - Case Details
The second disputed domain name is registered with Hostinger, UAB (the “Second Registrar”)
The third disputed domain name and the fourth disputed domain name <2canva.com> are registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu (the “Third Registrar”).
3. ...Though Panels have recognized that resellers, distributors, or service providers using a domain name containing a complainant’s trademark to undertake sales or repairs related to the complainant’s goods or services may be making a bona fide offering of goods and services and thus have a legitimate interest in such domain name, though certain elements enumerated under the Oki Data test, see section 2.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ...
2022-02-17 - Case Details
We registered the domain name believing that the domain name we choose [sic] was available for us to use. World Emergency Relief Organization has set up a website under a different domain name. ...See World Wrestling Federation Entertainment, Inc. v. Michael Bossman, Dispute No. D99-0001; Robert Ellenbogen v. Mike Pearson, Dispute No. D00-0001.
However, the UDRP Policy states that the following circumstances shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
(i) Circumstances indicating that [the Registrant has] registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) [the Registrant has] registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [the Registrant has] engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) [the Registrant has] registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, [the Registrant has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [its] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [its] web site or location or of a product or service on [its] web site or location.
...
2000-12-07 - Case Details
The Respondent is VARTAN PEREZ, United States of America (“United States”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc. ...The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed
domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2024-06-14 - Case Details
On February 2, 2000, Respondent registered the domain name .
On December 7, 2000, it registered the domain names
and .
4.7. ...Respondent has now deleted the domain name registrations
described above in order to destroy the traces of the Respondent's cybersquatting
activities.
...
2002-11-04 - Case Details
The Respondent in this administrative proceeding is John Zuccarini, Nassau, Bahamas.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is . The Registrar of the domain name is CSL Computer Service Langenbach GmbH d/b/a Joker.com, Germany.
3. ...The Respondent contends that he has a legitimate interest in the subject domain name "…because the [subject domain name] incorporates merely a misspelling of the common dictionary word ‘vanguard.’" ...
2002-12-02 - Case Details