The Complainant also states that it owns some 5,000 domain names containing the term “Lego” including
the domain name registered on August 22, 1995.
...Such behavior further suggests a
bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain names. See Intel Corporation v. The Pentium Group,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0273 (“The incorporation of a well-known trademark into a domain name by a
registrant having no plausible explanation for doing so may be, in and of itself, an indication of bad faith.”);
and Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondée en 1772 v. ...
2023-04-13 - Case Details
The Respondent is Hans Nieuwland of P.O. Box 5, Wallan, V 3756, Australia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
2.1 The domain name in issue is . ...- The Respondent has no legitimate reason to register or maintain the domain name and has failed to articulate any rights in or legitimate reason for registering the domain name...
2001-08-16 - Case Details
Véase también Virgin
Enterprises Limited v. Domain Admin/This Domain is for Sale, Hugedomains.com, Caso OMPI No. D2017-1961: “The disputed domain
name resolved to a webpage of the Respondent which offered the disputed domain name for sale [...] ...v. David Greenblatt, Caso OMPI No. D2016-0653: “Selling of a domain name is a legitimate
business unless it is done in bad faith. ...
2024-02-07 - Case Details
The Respondent is Murat Yikilmaz, Istanbul, Turkey, represented by Muscovitch
& Associates, Canada.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Moniker Online
Services, LLC.
3. ...However, this Panel considers
that the real point being made in the decisions such as Rollerblade Inc.
v. Chris McReady WIPO Case No. D2000-0429,
is that the addition of the suffix “.com” or other gTLD, which is
required by the current technical structure of the domain name space, is no
different to the inclusion in a domain name of other generic material. ...
2006-04-11 - Case Details
On March 19, 2001,
WIPO sent a "Request for Registrar Verification" via email to the Registrar
requesting, confirmation that the Registrar had received a copy of the complaint;
that the domain name under dispute is registered with it; that Respondent
is the current registrant of such Domain Name; and full contacts details
available under the WHOIS database; that the Uniform Domain Name Dispute
Resolution Policy applies to the Domain Name; and, the current status of
the Domain Name.
...The provision of Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy only contains a non-exclusive
list of circumstances of bad faith. Several WIPO domain name panels have extended
the scope of the term "bad faith" (cf. Telstra Corporation Ltd. v. Nuclear
Marshmallows, Case no. ...
2001-05-17 - Case Details
Shoenhair, United States, represented by Patterson Thuente Pedersen, P.A., United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...See B & H Foto & Electronics Corp. v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. / Joseph Gross,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0842. The threshold for satisfying this first element is low and generally panels have found that fully incorporating the identical mark in a disputed domain name is sufficient to meet the threshold.
...
2020-05-21 - Case Details
However, before the transfer
could be effected the registration of the Domain Name was cancelled on Electric
Ocean’s failure to pay the fees. The Domain Name fell back into the public domain.
...Reverse Domain Name Hijacking is defined in paragraph 1 of the Rules as meaning
"using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain
name holder of a domain name."
...
2001-11-06 - Case Details
The Respondent first registered the domain name in October, 1999. If the Respondent had a bona fide reason to register the said domain name, it would have proceeded to activate the web site at the said domain name address. ...According
to previous
Panel decisions
under the
UDRP, this
does not,
however,
necessarily
prevent
that the
domain name
has been
registered
and used
in bad faith,
see WIPO
Case No.
D2000-0003,
Telstra
Corporation
v. ...
2003-08-21 - Case Details
The Respondent is Whois Privacy, Private by Design, LLC, United States / hggfdd bchgugugh, United
States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Porkbun LLC (the
“Registrar”).
3. ...According to the Registrar’s WhoIs database, the Domain Name was created on May 26, 2022. The
Registrar reported that it was registered in the name of a domain privacy service. ...
2022-08-11 - 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”).
...As stated inter alia in DHL Operations B.V v. Net Marketing Group,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0868 “It is obvious that the value and goodwill, of the Complainant’s mark DHL which has an extensive world wide recognition, would have been known to the Respondent at the time of registration of the Domain Name. ...
2020-05-14 - Case Details
The Respondent is Jiangzheng Yang, Yangjiangzheng of Bazhong, Sichuan, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Silverbackdomains.com LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The disputed domain name was registered on November 4, 2017. The disputed domain name resolves to a website displaying adult content.
5. ...
2018-03-28 - Case Details
The Respondent is suresh willsonraj, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (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. ...
2025-05-09 - Case Details
The Respondent is Emre Demir, Sensizlik, Türkiye.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc. ...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. ...
2025-07-11 - Case Details
The Respondent is Sebaastian Vettel, Latvia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. ...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. ...
2024-02-26 - 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 Respondent registered the disputed domain name on June 12, 2017 and the domain name on June 13, 2017.
...
2018-01-23 - Case Details
The Respondent is Raghu Sharma, Canada.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The non-use of the disputed domain name indicates that the Respondent has no legitimate
interest in the disputed domain name. It is inconceivable that anyone having a legitimate interest in a
domain name would keep that domain name inactive for a duration of more than two years. ...
2022-10-04 - Case Details
The Respondent is Luis Alberto Laichter, Argentina.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Sav.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The disputed domain name was registered on June 1, 2020, and currently redirects to a website hosted at
the domain name which ostensibly advertises the Respondent’s domain name management,
acquisition, and other services. ...
2024-05-14 - Case Details
The Respondent is Registration Private - Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States of America (“United States”) / Marisol Cortes, United States, represented by Steven Rinehart, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Respondent also submits that the Respondent has always used the Disputed Domain Name for personal emails and not for a purpose which would confuse the Complainant’s customers. The Panel notes that use of an email can be a legitimate use of a domain name under the Policy for example, where a registrant has established a business of providing email services using the relevant domain name, or where a domain name is being used as a registrant’s primary personal or business email address (see Thebuyerpool Limited v. ...
2019-09-04 - Case Details
The Complainant also submits that the Respondents were involved in a previous UDRP case with the
Complainant, involving the domain name , which was also used for phishing activity (Wärtsilä
Technology Oy Ab v. Contact Privacy Inc. ...As noted by the Complainant, one of the Respondents was involved in a previous domain
name dispute with the Complainant, involving the domain name , which was also used for
phishing activity (Wärtsilä Technology Oy Ab v. ...
2022-11-30 - Case Details
It exhibits a prior decision under the
UDRP, namely Laurenz Ruprecht (c2Play) v. Adres Marka, CAC Case No. 106956, in which the Respondent
was found to have registered the domain name in bad faith.
...Maier
Sole Panelist
Date: April 7, 2025
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Ledger SAS v. Adres Marka, MarkaAdres.com
Case No. D2025-0296
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. ...
2025-04-15 - Case Details