Respondent is Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States / John Jordan, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The disputed domain name begins with
Complainant’s SPACEX mark, followed by the dictionary term “pay”. It is the consensus view of UDRP
panels that, where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, the domain name will be
considered confusingly similar to that mark. ...
2022-07-27 - Case Details
The Respondent is jerry menez, KITTENCARECENTER, United States of America (“United States”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...Disregarding the “.co” country-code Top-Level
Domain (“ccTLD”) as an essential element of any domain name, the Domain Name is identical to the SMALL
PHARMA Mark. ...
2023-01-12 - Case Details
Thereafter, 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”).
...These examples include: (i) use of the domain name or a name corresponding to it “in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services” before Respondent received any notice of the dispute; (ii) demonstration that the Respondent has been “commonly known by the domain name”; or (iii) “legitimate noncommercial 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.”
...
2010-02-24 - Case Details
This form of variation does not prevent a finding of
confusing similarity under the first element. See Fenix International Limited v. Patrick Flensby, WIPO Case
No. D2022-0310. The Complainant’s trademark is clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name
(WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8).
...The Panel has also considered the fact that the disputed domain names resolve to PPC pages which display
links to websites related to travel services. It has been well-established that where a domain name is used
to generate revenue in respect of “click through” traffic, and that traffic has been attracted because of the
name’s association with the Complainant, such use amounts to use in bad faith (SAP SE v. ...
2023-05-26 - Case Details
The Respondent is Monika Sarr, Germany.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with One.com A/S (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainants have demonstrated that the CRÉDIT MUTUEL mark is well-known (see also Confederation Nationale du Credit Mutuel v. Domain Privacy Service Fbo Registrant,
WIPO Case No. D2015-0944 ()).
Considering:
(i) that the trademark CRÉDIT MUTUEL is well-known;
(ii) that no legitimate use by the Respondent of the combination CRÉDIT MUTUEL and BFCM is conceivable; and
(iii) the passive holding of the disputed domain name without a legitimate purpose, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
...
2019-12-17 - Case Details
As can be deduced from the advice of NSI that the domain name in question are "active", the Respondent has not requested that the domain names at issue be deleted from the domain name database, nor sought to terminate the agreement with NSI. ...D2000-0020, where the Panelist decided that:
"When registering the Domain Name, Respondent knowingly chose a name which is identical and limited to the trademark of Complainant and which is identical to the domain name registered by Complainant in the .com gTLD. ...
2001-03-30 - Case Details
Moreover, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name given that:
(i) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name;
(ii) the Respondent appears to make no genuine use of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the Complainant has never licensed or otherwise authorized in any way the Respondent to use the SAINT-GOBAIN trademark as domain name or as element of a domain name or for any other kind of purpose.
...The registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith can be found in the present case in view of the following circumstances:
(i) the Respondent has provided no evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good faith use of the disputed domain name;
(ii) the well-known status of the Complainant’s trademark and the nature of the disputed domain name, along with the potential use in connection with fraudulent email scams, suggests a rather clear indication of the Respondent’s registration and holding of the disputed domain name in bad faith, with the implausibility of any good faith use to which the disputed domain name may be put;
(iii) the choice to retain a privacy protection service to conceal the Respondent’s true identity;
(iv) the present inactive use of the disputed domain name; and
(v) the indication of a false address in the WhoIs data and, consequently, the Center not being able to have communications fully delivered to it.
...
2022-01-21 - Case Details
The Respondent is mehdi shafie of Zwolle, the Netherlands.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Realtime Register B.V. ...The Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name and has not acquired trade mark or service mark rights in the Disputed Domain Name.
The Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name was not authorised by the Complainant. ...
2017-10-31 - Case Details
The Respondent is John Deecon, Traf f icDomains INC, Malaysia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Web Commerce Communications Limited dba
WebNic.cc (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The disputed domain name is almost
identical to the Complainant’s domain name . The Respondent did not f ile any response
explaining its reason for choosing the disputed domain name. ...
2025-08-15 - Case Details
The Respondent is Yuran, China.
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 July 23, 2024.
It appears from the evidence provided by the Complainant that the disputed domain name redirects to a
page offering the disputed domain name for sale for USD 1,450.
5. ...
2024-11-12 - Case Details
The Respondent is Yuran, China.
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 July 23, 2024.
It appears from the evidence provided by the Complainant that the disputed domain name redirects to a
page offering the disputed domain name for sale for USD 1,450.
5. ...
2024-11-12 - Case Details
The Respondent is Tao Hou, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc. ...The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The
disputed domain name resolves to copycat version of the Complainant’s official website, which cannot be
deemed as using the disputed domain name in connection with making a bona fide offering of goods or
services.
...
2024-08-13 - Case Details
It is clear to the Panel from the foregoing elements that the Respondent is not a good
faith provider of goods or services under the disputed domain name (and previously, while
they were linked to identical websites, also under the disputed domain names and
), see also Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ...In this regard, the Panel finds that holding a domain name passively, without making
any use of it, does not confer any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names on the
Respondent (see earlier UDRP decisions such as Bollore SE v. ...
2022-10-21 - Case Details
Respondent is Aaron Thomas, Canada, self-represented.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...Badgley
Sole Panelist
Date: March 3, 2025
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Tata Motors Limited v. Aaron Thomas
Case No. DAI2025-0002
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2025-03-05 - Case Details
Respondent is Franck Jeannin, France.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Gandi SAS (the
“Registrar”).
3. ...Oosterbaan
Sole Panelist
Date: November 19, 2025
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
LEGO Holding A/S v. Franck Jeannin
Case No. D2025-3962
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2025-11-21 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc. (the “Third Registrar”).
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...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”).
...
2024-07-10 - 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").
...It is well-established that the inclusion of a gTLD does not give any distinctiveness to a domain name (citing Guccio Gucci S.p.A. v. Brendla Hawkins,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0603).
The Complainants also note that the merger between Numericable and SFR has been covered by media all over the world during the last months and particularly the days before the Respondent registered the disputed domain names. ...
2014-10-15 - Case Details
Alireza Fahimipour, Isfahan, Islamic Republic of Iran.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”)
is registered with IRNIC.
3. ...The Respondent has to date not offered the Domain Name on his website or otherwise for sale.
However, the passive holding of a domain name can be regarded as bad faith
use when no possible use in good faith can be conceived, provided the complainant
has a well known trademark (Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2006-05-10 - Case Details
The Respondent is James Andrew, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com
(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”).
...
2023-08-11 - Case Details
The Respondent is Team Work, CSI Leasing, U.S.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...Following a formal complaint to the registrar, the disputed
domain name was suspended. At the time of the decision, the disputed domain name does not resolve to an
active website.
5. ...
2024-08-19 - Case Details