The Respondent is Phu Cuong Ha, Viet Nam.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Name.com, Inc.
...The
Complainant is not aware of any use by the Respondent, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain
Name, or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or
services. ...
2023-09-04 - Case Details
Respondent is wlliams Bogdan, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Sav.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Complainant
Complainant contends that (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainants’
trademarks, (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and (iii)
Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...
2024-10-08 - Case Details
Respondent is Host Master, 1337 Services LLC, Saint Kitts and Nevis.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Tucows Inc. ...Complainant
Complainant contends that (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s
trademarks, (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and (iii)
Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...
2024-07-15 - Case Details
The Respondent is Kam Yong, Singapore.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Cosmotown, Inc. ...Palazzi
Sole Panelist
Date: December 6, 2024
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Le Moulin de la Chaume v. Kam Yong
Case No. D2024-4374
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2024-12-11 - Case Details
Ltd. of Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the "Domain Name") is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC. ...See, e.g., MasterCard International Incorporated v. Michael J Yanda, Indy Web Productions,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1140. Under these circumstances, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's ORANGE mark.
...
2015-02-18 - Case Details
The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Center verified that 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”).
...
2016-05-09 - Case Details
The Respondent is career solutions of Khurda, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with BigRock Solutions Pvt Ltd. ...As the panel explained in Drexel University v. David Brouda,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0067, if a respondent has chosen a domain name in order to create a misleading impression of association with the Complainant, that does not give the respondent a right or legitimate interest in the domain name. ...
2016-03-10 - Case Details
The Domain Name is .
The differences between the trademark and the domain name are only relating to the use of Icelandic letters. ...When using a domain name corresponding to the trademark of another, the owner of the domain name identifies himself as the owner of the trademark. ...
2005-01-17 - Case Details
D2006-0483, where the Panel found that,
absent some contrary evidence from the Respondent, passive holding of a domain name does not constitute
legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See also Euromarket Designs, Inc. v. ...As to the use of the disputed domain names, the Panel notes that all of them resolve to inactive websites.
Prior UDRP panels have found that the 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. ...
2023-06-27 - Case Details
Complainant submits that as Respondent has no intention of using the domain name, and that the domain name is identical to the business name of a competitor, Respondent has registered the domain name in bad faith in order to disrupt the business of a competitor.
...The Respondent is a passive holder of the domain name in dispute. The Administrative
Panel in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO
Case No. ...
2001-11-30 - Case Details
The Respondent is Sanne Kessels, PerfettiVanMelle, Netherlands (Kingdom of the).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC (the
“Registrar”).
3. ...page 3
The disputed domain name has been redirected to an inactive website. In view of the confusing similarity of
the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s reputed trademark, company name and domain name, the
Respondent’s lack of any right or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the Respondent’s
attempt to impersonate the Complainant by indicating “PerfettiVanMelle” as registrant’s name in the Whois
records, and the implausibility of any good faith use to which the disputed domain name may be put, the
Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith by passively holding the disputed domain name.
...
2026-04-27 - 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
The Complainant must show that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the
disputed domain names. The Respondent may establish a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain
names by demonstrating in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy any of the following:
“(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain
name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or
services; or
(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name,
even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you are making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for
commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.”
...
2023-03-17 - Case Details
The Respondent is PHAM VAN THAI, Domain Service, Viet Nam.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Dominet (HK) Limited (the “Registrar”).
3. ...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. ...
2025-11-26 - Case Details
The Respondent is Swiss Domain Trustee AG, Switzerland.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Ascio Technologies Inc. ...At the time of registration of the disputed domain name, the Complainant’s business was
well-established. The disputed domain name is being passively held in bad faith.
...
2024-07-25 - Case Details
The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...
2018-12-21 - Case Details
The Respondent is Transure Enterprise Ltd, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (“Domain Name”) is registered with Above.com Pty 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”).
...
2023-01-09 - Case Details
The Respondent is Jenny Merlo, Acliviti, United States of America (“United States”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (“Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...The Domain Name was registered January 27, 2023. The Domain Name does not resolve, and there is no
evidence that it ever has resolved, to an active webpage. ...
2023-05-17 - Case Details
The Respondent is Jadon Guy, United States of America (“United States”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...Instead, the Domain Name resolves to
a pay-per-click site that makes reference to the Complainant’s products. Such use of the Domain Name
cannot and does not constitute bona fide commercial use, sufficient to legitimize any rights and interests the
Respondent might have in the Domain Name and therefore the Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests in the Domain Name under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
...
2023-03-06 - 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”).
...Despite this possible bad faith registration, however, a subsequent bad faith use of the domain name is not given in this case, for reasons set forth below:
Even if this Panel would endorse the position taken by a small number of panels, such as in the Mummygold case (City Views Limited v. ...
2010-12-08 - Case Details
The Respondent is Name Redacted1.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Gandi SAS (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”).
1 The Respondent appears to have used the name of a third party when registering the disputed domain name. ...
2024-12-13 - Case Details