The Respondent is DNS Admin, Netherlands (Kingdom of the).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Netherlands Domains
(the “Registrar”).
3. ...No. 2065991 (registered on May 27, 1997).
The Domain Name appears to be registered on July 4, 2023. The Domain Name redirects to a website that
offers the Domain Name for sale. ...
2026-01-15 - 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”).
...See
Parfums Christian Dior v. Javier Garcia Quintas, WIPO Case No. D2000-0226. Furthermore, from the
inception of the UDRP, panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank page)
would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. ...
2023-05-23 - Case Details
Respondent is Matthew Soto Jr, Matt Soto, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name [hereinafter “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. ...
2024-08-29 - 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”).
...Oki Data Ams., Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0903 established that a domain name which wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered mark is sufficient to state that identity or confusing similarity is present, despite the addition of other words. ...
2014-07-30 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the trademark MICHELIN, in which the Complainant has rights; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and, that the disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith.
...The Respondent has not responded and the Panel is unable to conceive of any basis upon which the Respondent could sensibly be said to have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0003).
The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy have been fulfilled.
...
2021-08-31 - Case Details
The Respondent is Aaron vladimirsky, handyct of Norwalk, Conneticut, United States of America (“USA”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name, (the “Domain Name”), was at the time of the filing of the Complaint registered with DNC Holdings, Inc. ...Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name, be transferred to the Complainant.
Tony Willoughby
Sole Panelist
Date: January 27, 2016
1 Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ...
2016-02-01 - 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").
...As at the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a parking page with a link to a domain name marketplace, through which bids could be submitted to buy the disputed domain name.
5. ...
2015-08-18 - 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
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”).
...Furthermore, the Panel notes that the Respondent had previously been involved in numerous UDRP
disputes (including another case involving the Complainant: Haleon UK IP Limited v. shi lei, Shi Lei, WIPO
Case No. D2023-4704) which resulted in the transfer of the domain name to the complainant. ...
2024-04-29 - Case Details
The Respondent is Rajendra Mumbai of Manipur, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with EstDomains, Inc.
3. ...Such use demonstrates bad faith for the purposes of the Policy as stated in Casio Keisanki Kabushiki (Casio Computer Co., Ltd.) v. Jonchan Kim,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0400 and other decisions.
In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
7. ...
2008-07-03 - Case Details
The Respondent is homn mohmoodi, Denmark.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with CSL Computer Service Langenbach GmbH
d/b/a Joker.com (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Since the trademark IQOS of the Complainant is included in the disputed domain name,
this is sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademark. ...
2023-01-13 - Case Details
The Respondent is The trustee for OM JEWELLERS TRUST, Australia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Web Address Registration Pty Ltd (the
“Registrar”).
3. ...The disputed domain name was registered on March 22, 2023. As of the date of this
Complaint, the disputed domain name was inactive and could not be reached.
...
2024-01-18 - Case Details
The Respondent is Jennifer Kaeppeler, United Kingdom.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Name SRS AB (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad
faith based on the distinctiveness and reputation of the ALSTOM mark, the typosquatting nature of the
disputed domain name, and the lack of any use made of the disputed domain name.
...
2025-11-21 - Case Details
The Respondent is Tukamushabe Gorret, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Hostinger Operations, UAB (the
“Registrar”).
3. ...The disputed domain name is not currently in use, but the Complainant claims that at one point the disputed
domain name was used for a fraudulent crypto business using the Complainant’s name and address. ...
2024-10-17 - Case Details
Goga 10-11, Kishinev, MD 10012, Republic of Moldova.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name at issue is (hereafter "the Domain Name"). ...On July 3, 2002, the Center verified that the Complaint met 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 Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Supplemental Rules").
...
2002-08-26 - Case Details
On January 26, 2004, Satoshi Shimoshita became listed as the registrant for the domain name. It appears that Shimoshita intended to purchase the domain name, but withdrew when ownership of the domain name was questioned.
...Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Complainant claims that the domain name is identical to a mark owned by Complainant; that the Respondent lacks an legitimate right or interest in the domain name; and that the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith. ...
2004-06-22 - Case Details
The Respondent is Name Rdacted1.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Wild West Domains, LLC (the
“Registrar”).
3. ...The Panel finds 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. ...
2023-07-13 - Case Details
Burn World-Wide, Ltd. d/b/a BGT Partners v.
Banta Global Turnkey Ltd WIPO Case No. D2010-0470.
Generally speaking, a finding that a domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith
requires an inference to be drawn that the respondent in question has registered and is using the disputed
domain name to take advantage of its significance as a trademark owned by (usually) the complainant.
...Rothnie
Sole Panelist
Date: October 20, 2023
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
WK Travel, Inc. v. John Doe
Case No. D2023-3353
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2023-10-26 - Case Details
The respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, United States of America (“United States”) /
Wesley Karr, United States (the “Respondent”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <モラタメ.net> () (the “Domain Name”) is registered with
Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Complainant submits that the Domain Name is identical to the Trademark in which it has rights, the
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and the registration and
use of the Domain Name have been done in bad faith. ...
2022-09-09 - Case Details
The Respondent is General Inquiries, United States of America (“United States”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with CloudFlare, Inc. ...Therefore, the disputed domain name is not being used by the Respondent in a fair manner.
- The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. ...
2024-06-04 - Case Details
The Respondent is 谢春甫 (Xie Chun Fu), China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd. ...On the same day the Complainants received a reply from Chunfux’s email address, indicating that the sender’s client, not Xie Chun Fu, was the owner of the disputed domain name, that the owner authorized the sender (identified as “xuper”) to deal with domain name matters with full authority and that he was willing to conduct a friendly negotiation to transfer the disputed domain name, but the cost of the disputed domain name had to be paid. ...
2021-07-19 - Case Details