The Respondent is Privacy Protect LLC, United States of America / Shengamo Malenga, Shengamo Media Limited, Zambia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0003). In this case, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name constitutes an impersonation of the Complainant that will inevitably lead a significant number of Internet users mistakenly to believe that the disputed domain name is registered or authorized by the Complainant. ...
2019-10-30 - Case Details
The Respondent is Iam Humlum of Snaasa, Norway.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name in dispute is ("the Domain Name"). The Registrar is NamesDirect.com, Inc.
3. ...Parties’ Contentions
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical to the mark "Postbus 51" in which it has rights by virtue of its use and reputation; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and that the Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name in bad faith. ...
2002-06-21 - Case Details
The Respondent is Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States of America / ?zg?r Ceridi, Turkey.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”), is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Complainant objects to the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name on several grounds. First, it contends that the Domain Name, featuring as it does the HEETS brand name and the word “sigara”, the Turkish word for cigarette, is likely to be taken as a domain name of or authorized by the Complainant. ...
2020-12-16 - 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 No Name, United States of America.1
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Sav.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. .../Erica Aoki/
Erica Aoki
Sole Panelist
Date: May 2, 2025
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Carrefour SA v. No Name
Case No. D2025-0655
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2025-05-09 - Case Details
The Domain Name was registered on January 12, 2010 using the registrar's domain privacy service. ...Thus, the consensus view is that paragraph 4(c) of the Policy shifts the burden to the Respondent to come forward with evidence of a right or legitimate interest in the Domain Name, once the Complainant has made a prima facie showing (as it has in this case). See, e.g., Document Technologies, Inc. v. ...
2010-06-21 - Case Details
Respondent is Rentacrate NZ Ltd. of Albany, Auckland, New Zealand, internally represented.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with eNom (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Complainant submits that the relevant comparison to be made is with the second-level portion of the Domain Name only – "movabox”, and that the only difference between the Domain Name and Complainant's Trade Mark is that the Domain Name has omitted one letter: movabox vs moovabox, and consequently the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's Trade Mark, in which Complainant had rights at the date the Domain Name was registered, and in which Complainant continues to have rights.
...
2013-05-31 - Case Details
Specifically, the Disputed Domain Names contain the FAT FACE
Trademarks, but misspelled, with the addition of an extra “a” to the Disputed Domain Name
and the addition of letter “r” to the Disputed Domain Name .
...The Disputed Domain Name
previously redirected to the Disputed Domain Name where the competing
products of the Complainant were purportedly offered for sale. ...
2024-05-22 - Case Details
The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...See Match.com, LP v. Bill Zag and NWLAWS.ORG,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0230.
In this case, the Panel holds that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith because the Disputed Domain Name clearly targets the Complainant’s Trademarks and the Complainant’s activities in the area of transportation services, as reflected by the content of the website associated with the Disputed Domain Name which replicates elements of the website of another company operating in the parcel delivery business (i.e., “www.yodel.co.uk”). ...
2019-12-20 - 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”).
...“Numerous ICANN UDRP decisions have recognized that incorporating a trademark in its entirety can be sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark.” PepsiCo, Inc. v. PEPSI, SRL (a/k/a P.E.P.S.I.) and EMS COMPUTER INDUSTRY (a/k/a EMS),
WIPO Case No. ...
2010-07-27 - Case Details
Said firm no longer required the disputed domain name following a corporate acquisition of the original registrant, which had used the disputed domain name from 1992 to 2015.
...The Complainant sets out the history of the disputed domain name from 1992 to 2015, and evidences a redirection of Internet users from the disputed domain name to another domain name connected with the previous owner of the disputed domain name on March 13, 2016, followed by a redirection to a different domain name used by the Respondent on October 3, 2016.
...
2019-07-26 - Case Details
The Respondent misleads Internet users into believing that the Complainant operates the website found at the disputed domain name. Such conduct constitutes definitive evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith; see Educational Testing Service v. ...This further reinforces the lack of legitimate or fair use of the disputed domain name; see, for example, CNU Online Holdings, LLC v. Mardva Logsdon, cashnetusafinance,
WIPO Case No. ...
2020-07-15 - Case Details
The Respondent is Ritesh Pal / MLM Hub of Mumbai, India, represented by ADITYA & ASSOCIATES, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.
3. ...Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
The Respondent requests that the Panel make a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.
...
2011-10-10 - Case Details
The Respondent is 4M Asset Management Limited of Edinburgh, UK.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Register.IT SPA (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The disputed domain name is also virtually identical to the Complainant’s authentic domain name and Internet presence “www.edinburghacademy.org.uk”. ...
2013-02-11 - Case Details
Respondent is Brandice Henderson, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Domain.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Complainant
Complainant alleges that it owns rights in the MODERNA trademark and that the disputed domain name is
confusingly similar to that trademark.
Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name
because: (1) Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its MODERNA trademark or its company
name “Modernatx” in the disputed domain name; (2) Respondent does not hold trademark rights in the
disputed domain name or in the term “modernatx”; (3) Respondent has not been commonly known by the
disputed domain name or Complainant’s company name; (4) the disputed domain name has no meaning in
page 3
the English language, nor does Complainant’s company name; (5) there is no evidence of use or
preparations to use the disputed domain name by Respondent for a bona fide offering of goods or services;
(6) there is no evidence of a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name by
Respondent, and (7) given the appropriation of Complainant’s well-known mark in the disputed domain name
there is a high risk of association between the disputed domain name and Complainant.
...
2022-06-15 - 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”).
...Further, panels have repeatedly held that using a domain name in connection with a monetized
parking page under the circumstances present here constitutes bad faith. ...
2025-03-20 - Case Details
The purpose for which the disputed domain name has been used indicates that the Third Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
...Whereas in the former situation it may be possible for the respondent to have a right or legitimate interest in the domain name, in the latter situation it is not. As was stated in Monty and Pat Roberts, Inc. v. Bill Keith,
WIPO Case No. ...
2009-09-17 - 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”).
...Rights or Legitimate Interests
Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the complainant must make at least a prima facie showing that the respondent possesses no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Malayan Banking Berhad v. Beauty, Success & Truth International,
WIPO Case No. D2008-1393. ...
2020-08-25 - 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”).
...D2001-0900) unless that content might indicate an intention on the part of the respondent to confuse Internet users, in which case the conclusion that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark may more readily be drawn: RapidShare AG and Christian Schmid v. majeed randi,
WIPO Case No. ...
2013-02-20 - 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 Disputed Domain Name was registered on August 2, 2013. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on June 9, 2018. ...
2019-05-31 - Case Details