The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Paragraph 1 of the Rules defines “Reverse Domain Name Hijacking” to be “using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain name holder of a domain name”.
...
2018-04-30 - Case Details
The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisf ied 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”).
...Panels have previously held that a finding of bad faith can be established where a complainant’s trademark
is shown to be well known or in wide use at the time of registration of the disputed domain name (see LEGO
Juris A/S v. store24hour, WIPO Case No. D2013-0091). The Respondent must have been aware of the
Complainant and the Complainant’s Trademark when registering and using the Disputed Domain Names
given the well-known nature of the Complainant’s Trademark and the fact that it was put into use well before
the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Names.
...
2025-12-04 - Case Details
Respondent is Eric Russell, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Nicenic International Group Co., Limited (the
“Registrar”).
3. ...In comparing Complainant’s KBR mark with the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the disputed
domain name is confusingly similar to this mark as the mark is clearly recognizable within the disputed
domain name, followed by a hyphen and the terms “const”. ...
2023-06-26 - Case Details
ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Carrefour SA v. Domain Privacy, Domain Name Privacy Inc.
Case No. D2024-4560
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Carrefour SA, France, represented by IP Twins, France.
The Respondent is Domain Privacy, Domain Name Privacy Inc., Cyprus.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Communigal Communications Ltd. ...
2024-12-13 - Case Details
Respondent is JOHN HALFORD, Weedmapso, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap,
Inc. ...Austin
Panelist
Date: December 5, 2024
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Ghost Management Group, LLC v. JOHN HALFORD, Weedmapso
Case No. D2024-3860
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. ...
2024-12-10 - Case Details
The Respondent is Domain Admin, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Moreover, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the
disputed domain name since it has not been authorized by the Complainant to register the disputed domain
name or to use its trademark within the disputed domain name, it is not commonly known by the disputed
domain name, and it is not making either a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. ...
2025-02-17 - Case Details
The Respondent is Hongxia Wang, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc. ...Christie
Sole Panelist
Date: June 28, 2022
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
LEGO Juris A/S v. Hongxia Wang
Case No. D2022-1742
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2022-07-05 - Case Details
The Respondent is Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / kingsley ugwu, Nigeria.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (“Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc.
...Such conduct is deceptive, illegal, and in previous UDRP decisions
has been found to be evidence of registration and use in bad faith, see The Coca-Cola Company v. Marcus
Steiner, WIPO Case No. D2012-1804. The Panel finds that the Respondent is using the Domain Name in
bad faith.
...
2022-08-10 - 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 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.
...
2024-09-11 - Case Details
The Respondent is Name Redacted.1
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”).
...
2023-06-07 - Case Details
The Respondent is Sami Hooti of Hampshire, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with CentralNic and eNom.
3. ...Complainant
The Complainant observes that the Domain Name is identical to its SWAROVSKI marks and argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
...
2010-12-08 - Case Details
The Respondent is Ryan G Foo, PPA Media Services of Santiago, Chile; Fundacion Private Whois of Panama.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Internet.bs Corp. (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”).
...
2014-04-28 - Case Details
The Respondent is yurumiao of Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Xin Net Technology Corp. ...See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0662.
The disputed domain name comprises the Trade Mark in its entirety together with the generic article "the" and the geographical term "Sanya", a popular resort community in the Hainan province of China where the Complainant operates a hotel under the Trade Mark (with two more to open soon), which does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Trade Mark in any significant way.
...
2015-05-28 - Case Details
The Respondent is 刘营军 (liu ying jun), China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd.
...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”).
...
2023-03-29 - Case Details
The Respondent is Annette Johnson, Tangerineuk of Dry Ridge, Kentucky, United States of America (“US”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with 1&1 Internet AG (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”).
...
2016-12-27 - Case Details
The Respondent is fe653 edasd, United States of America (“United States”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Gname.com Pte. ...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. ...
2024-12-20 - Case Details
The Respondent is Smart Evolutionary Technology SET, Smart Evolutionary Technology, Cameroon.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Hostinger
Operations, UAB (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its unregistered Mark, that the
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and that the Respondent
registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith.
...
2025-11-26 - Case Details
The Respondent is M.O., radiant chic beauty, Belgium.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the Domain Name. Accordingly, the Domain Name is
confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2025-09-03 - Case Details
The Respondent is Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, Panama.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...Considering the confusing
similarity between the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s official domain name,
, and the coined nature of PLUXEE and “pluxe”, it should be highly unlikely for the
Respondent to have registered the disputed domain name purely by chance. ...
2024-11-18 - Case Details
The Respondent is Misha Kezyak, Afghanistan.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent
has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name.
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, and
relies on the Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed domain name, which it says suggests an attempt
to prevent the Complainant from reflecting the Mark in a corresponding domain name.
...
2024-09-19 - Case Details