The Respondent is Name Redacted1.
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 identical to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2024-03-14 - 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”).
...All the Domain Names were registered on January
23, 2025, except for Domain Name which was registered on February 14, 2025.
...
2025-07-10 - Case Details
case=D2009-1788
page 2
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
.../Mihaela Maravela/
Mihaela Maravela
Sole Panelist
Date: March 19, 2025
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Arm Limited v. Name Redacted
Case No. D2025-0321
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Names and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2025-03-21 - Case Details
The Respondent is Liu Fen, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The disputed domain name
redirects to a website offering the disputed domain name for sale for USD 1,450.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. ...
2023-02-08 - Case Details
The Respondent thus uses the disputed domain name solely for commercial gain since the
Respondent offers to sell or lease the disputed domain name for profit.
...The Panel thus finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.
The disputed domain name is offered for sale or for lease at a price likely in excess of the holder’s out-of-
pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name, which is in itself a clear indication of bad faith
use. ...
2022-10-13 - Case Details
The Respondent is PLUTO DOMAIN SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, Mumbai, Maharashtra, of India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Lead Networks Domains Pvt. ...The Respondent's use of the disputed domain name for such purpose is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. ...
2009-02-26 - Case Details
Respondent is HM, United States of America (“United States”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Google LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Respondent, according to the WhoIs information for the disputed domain name is located in the United
States and registered the disputed domain name on February 8, 2021. ...
2023-03-22 - Case Details
The Respondent is Gary Lam, Hong Kong, SAR of China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name in this case, (the “disputed domain
name”), is registered with eNom.
3. ...Cox Holdings, Inc. v. Private, WIPO
Case No. D2001-1446, March 11, 2002). The Complainant was unaware that the
disputed Domain Name was no longer in its possession until it discovered that
the Respondent was operating a commercial website using the Domain Name.
...
2005-01-13 - Case Details
The Respondent is Nabiev Ravshan, Russian Federation.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Respondent appears to be a Russian individual. According to the WhoIs, the disputed domain name was registered in the name of the Respondent on January 25, 2021. The website under the disputed domain name is currently inactive. ...
2021-08-09 - Case Details
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirement
of the ICANN 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"). ...Complainant apparently
did not respond to these letters until February 28, 2002.
Respondent registered the Domain Name
("the second Domain Name") on June 4, 2001. The website corresponding
to this Domain Name appears identical to that corresponding to the first Domain
Name. ...
2002-06-17 - Case Details
The addition of certain words, as here, can increase confusing similarity. See, e.g. Yellow Corporation v. MIC,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0748 ("when a domain name is registered which is a well-known trademark in combination with another word, the nature of the other word will largely determine the confusing similarity"). Here, because the words "water" and "artesian water" are associated with Complainants' products, these words increase the confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and Complainant's EVA trademark. See, e.g. Gateway Inc. v. Domaincar,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0604 (finding the domain name confusingly similar to the trademark GATEWAY because the domain name contained "the central element of the Complainant's GATEWAY Marks, plus the descriptive word for the line of goods and services in which the Complainant conducts its business").
...
2014-10-20 - Case Details
Der Gesuchsgegner ist Burtson Ive, Berlin, Deutschland.
2. Streitiger Domain-Name
Gegenstand des Verfahrens ist der Domain-Name (nachfolgend der „Domain-Name”).
...Somit ergäbe sich, dass der streitige Domain-Name die exakt gleiche Bedeutung wie die Marke MTRAVEL der Gesuchstellerin aufweise. Hinzu komme, dass der Domain-Name im Zusammenhang mit Reise- und Feriendienstleistungen verwendet wird. ...
2010-09-08 - Case Details
In support of this assertion, the Complaint states that registering a domain name and failing to construct a website to which the domain name resolves constitutes bad faith use. ...In this case, the mere addition of the word "india" at the end of the Respondent's domain name is not sufficient to distinguish it from the trademark of the Complainant. This is consistent with this Panel’s decision in AT&T Corp v. ...
2000-11-16 - Case Details
See e.g. Regal Removals v. Gary Bradshaw, WIPO Case No. D2003-0832.) This means that a number of ‘different’ respondents or aliases might be named in a complaint, as long as there is a single underlying entity which holds the domain name registration. ...This is defined in the Rules as “using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name”.
A finding of reverse domain name hijacking may be made where the complainant knew of the respondent’s unassailable rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name or the clear lack of bad faith registration and use, and nevertheless brought the complaint in bad faith. ...
2008-10-01 - Case Details
The Respondent is Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org, United States / Ebuka Victor, Nigeria.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the
“Registrar”).
3. ...There are no rights or legitimate interests held by the Respondent in respect of the Domain Name. The
Respondent is not commonly known as the Domain Name nor has the Complainant provided a licence or
authorization to register the Domain Name or any domain name incorporating the LATOUR TRADING Mark.
...
2022-08-31 - Case Details
The Respondent is Domain Admin, Domain Service, Inc, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (“Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with DropCatch.com LLC 1185 LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Complainant’s GEICO trademarks are distinctive and have been registered long before the registration of the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant’s GEICO trademark has been recognized as well known in prior UDPR decisions, e.g., Government Employees Insurance Company (“GEICO”) v. ...
2021-10-08 - Case Details
The Respondent is Justin Case, Things for you inc., United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (“Domain Name”) is registered with Above.com Pty
Ltd. ...Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Complainant
has proven the second element: the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant has alleged that the Respondent is offering the Domain Name for sale on the web site to
which the Domain Name resolves and that the Respondent has of fered the Domain Name for sale on a
domain name marketplace web site for USD 499. ...
2024-01-10 - Case Details
The Respondent is John English, Philippines.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...In cases where a
domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant
mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar
to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing.
...
2023-09-06 - 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”).
...Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain
name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a
respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. ...
2025-03-11 - 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").
...This domain name shares the same domain servers as the disputed domain names. The Respondent’s contact email address is also listed as domain@50below.com. ...
2003-01-22 - Case Details