The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendments 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.
...
2026-05-01 - 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 Panel further finds that Respondent has, on balance, demonstrated bad faith by passive holding of the disputed domain name . Such a finding is consistent with previous UDRP decisions, such as Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2021-11-08 - Case Details
The Respondent is Toure Madegbe, Madegbe Toure, Estonia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. ...The entirety of the LANXESS 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. ...
2025-05-14 - Case Details
The Respondent is DP World Packers and Logistics, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the
“Registrar”).
3. ...Maier
Sole Panelist
Date: March 26, 2025
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
DP World FZE v. DP World Packers and Logistics
Case No. D2025-0631
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. ...
2025-04-08 - Case Details
The Respondent is Kaleeswaran, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with AppCroNix Infotech Private Limited, d/b/a
VEBONIX (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The disputed domain name was registered on March 7, 2024. The disputed domain name resolves to an
inactive page.
5. ...
2024-05-30 - Case Details
Respondent is Jessica Bernal, N7 Creatives, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the
“Registrar”).
3. ...Subsequently, the disputed domain name was utilized in association with a malicious website.
Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name
because Respondent has no prior rights to the COMFORT KEEPERS Marks as a corporate name, trade
page 3
name, shop sign, mark or domain name. ...
2023-03-23 - Case Details
Respondent is Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org, Australia / Jason Furry, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with SIDN through PDR Ltd.
3. ...Moreover, Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith because (1) the disputed domain name is identical and/or confusingly similar to Complainant’s famous Trademark; (2) Respondent had constructive and/or actual notice of Complainant’s rights to the Trademark prior to registering and using the disputed domain name; and (3) Respondent is using Complainant’s Trademark in the disputed domain name and on Respondent’s website without authorization in an attempt to attract Internet users to Respondent’s website for its own financial gain.
...
2021-11-25 - Case Details
Paragraph 10(e) of the Rules requires a panel to decide a request by a party to consolidate multiple domain name disputes in accordance with the Policy and the Rules. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules states that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. ...See Ansell Healthcare Products Inc. v. Australian Therapeutics Supplies Pty, Ltd.,
WIPO Case No.D2001-0110. The LEGO trademark remains clearly recognizable within each disputed domain name.
...
2019-11-07 - 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”).
...Fratelli S.p.A. v. Sahand Consulting Inc., WIPO Case No. D2012-2450
(where the Panel held that BARILLA is “a globally-famous brand of pasta and pasta sauce” and that
“Because of the fame of the Complainant’s brands extending for over a century and the Complainant’s
worldwide marketing and advertising, the Respondent should have known of the Complainant’s trademarks
at the time of registration of the disputed domain name”).
...
2025-10-13 - 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”).
...Identical or Confusingly Similar
As stated above, the Complainant has established its rights in and to the trademark LEGO (word) and it is
the registrant of 5,000 domain names, including domain name. The Complainant’s trademark
registration constitutes “prima facie evidence of the validity of the trademark”, as held in Backstreet Prods., v.
...
2023-04-12 - Case Details
The Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, United States of America (“United States”) / Song Lan, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (“the Domain Name”) is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The conclusion of confusing similarity in these circumstances normally stems from the fact that the domain name contains sufficiently recognizable aspects of the relevant mark. The substitution of an adjacent keyboard letter for a letter in a complainant’s mark in a disputed domain name is expressly mentioned in WIPO Overview 3.0 as an example of typosquatting.
2 Referring to paragraph 2 of the Policy, under which a person registering a domain name represents and warrants to the registrar that, to his knowledge, the registration of the domain name will not infringe the rights of any third party.
3 WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.9.
4 WIPO Overview 3.0, at section 3.5.
5 SAP SE v. ...
2021-05-25 - 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”).
...The Complainant says that the Respondent’s choice of a “.com” domain, rather than another domain name extension such as “.us” or another domain name such as “flyboard-america”, was done to cause confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks.
...
2013-01-25 - Case Details
The Respondent is Aleksandr Miklyaev, Norway.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with One.com A/S
(the “Registrar”).
3. ...There is no evidence of the Respondent’s
use of, or 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. ...
2022-12-21 - Case Details
The Respondent is Nithin Babu, Cloudmax, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Wix.com Ltd. ...Indeed, the Respondent’s prior use of the disputed domain name did not meet the cumulative requirements
set forth in the leading case Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ...
2024-03-21 - 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”).
...Elizabeth Riegel and Andrew Riegel,
WIPO Case No. D2005-1045.
In Sanofi-Aventis v. Conciergebrain.com, WIPO
Case No. D2005-0660, the panel stated that it:
“follows what it regards as a consensus view that the test of confusing similarity under the Policy is confined to a comparison of the disputed domain name and the trade mark, assessed independently of extraneous marketing or use considerations. ...
2006-06-26 - Case Details
The Respondent is Octave Clavet of Montreal, Quebec, Canada (“Respondent”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name at issue, (the “Disputed Domain Name”), is registered with GoDaddy.com (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Indeed, at least one earlier panel has found that confusing similarity exists when a generic word like “media”, “magazine”, and “hotel” accompanies the mark ACCOR in a domain name. See Accor v. Matthew Lloyd, RealHostValue/Adi Dhama, PrivacyProtect.org,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1726. ...
2012-09-17 - 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”).
...The Complainant requests the consolidation of the disputes 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.
...
2025-07-09 - Case Details
The Respondent is Aman Boora, Tech Fusion, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc.
...Subsequently, the Domain Name was set to redirect to a different domain name purporting to offer
aged social media accounts for sale.
5. ...
2025-03-28 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is identical to its trade mark BOEHRINGER-
INGELHEIM and that the “.ai” Top Level Domain (“TLD”) does not change the overall impression given by
the disputed domain name.
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the WhoIs database as the disputed
domain name. It notes that past panels have held that a respondent was not commonly known by a disputed
domain name if the WhoIs information was not similar to the disputed domain name.
...
2023-09-01 - Case Details
The Respondent is Renan Basparmak, Türkiye.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Respondent is Renan Basparmak.
The disputed domain name was registered on January 24, 2024, and it resolves to a website where the
domain name is available for sale.
5. ...
2024-08-15 - Case Details