The Respondent is Host Master, Transure Enterprise Ltd, United States (“Respondent”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Above.com, Inc. ...Scott Donahey
Sole Panelist
Date: March 25, 2022
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Blackbaud, Inc. v. Host Master, Transure Enterprise Ltd
Case No. D2022-0530
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. ...
2022-05-05 - Case Details
The Respondent is Gurpreet Purewal, Voltas Engineering of Surrey, British Columbia, Canada, represented by CGM Lawyers, Canada.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (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").
...
2017-03-29 - 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 Respondent is wilson wijaya, Indonesia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. .../Assen Alexiev/
Assen Alexiev
Sole Panelist
Date: May 22, 2026
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Karen Roter Davis v. wilson wijaya
Case No. D2026-1435
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2026-05-27 - 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 Domain Name was registered on October 14, 2013, and the Domain Name and were registered on January 3, 2014.
...Many UDRP decisions have found that a domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark where the domain name incorporates the complainant’s trademark in its entirety. ...
2014-08-04 - Case Details
The Respondent is Yosi Hasidim of 48 Hanesieim, Petah Tikva, il, 49550, Israel. The Respondent is unrepresented.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name the subject of the dispute is "hitachistore.com" first registered on November 26, 1999.
...The Complainant also contends that the Respondent cannot establish any rights or legitimate interest in the domain name. Further it is contended that the Respondent has registered the domain name wrongfully and reference is made to a number of other domain names registered by or associated with the Respondent.
...
2001-02-05 - Case Details
Group One Holdings Pte Ltd v. Steven Hafto
WIPO Case No. D2017-0183.
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 5, 2024
1 Citing an article published in 2015 by GQ magazine.
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Nimiq Labs Ltd v. Yonatan Ben Shimon, 1XHUB Ltd
Case No. D2024-2772
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. ...
2024-10-11 - Case Details
The Complainant filed an
amended Complaint on November 14, 2022,
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”).
...Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant must show that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the
disputed domain names. The Respondent may establish a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain
names by demonstrating in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy any of the following:
“(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable 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; or
(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name,
even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you are making a 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.”
...
2023-01-06 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Since the Respondent’s Domain Name differs from the Complainant’s marks only by the addition of the now common "E-", there is considerable likelihood of confusion of the Domain Name with the Complainant’s business. ...No explanation has been offered even informally of how the registered Name and Website would be used for a non-confusing purpose.
7. Decision
The Panelist decides, in accordance with the Uniform Domain Name Resolution Policy, Paragraph 4:
(i) that the domain name in dispute is confusingly similar to the registered trade and service marks of the Complainant;
(ii) that the Respondents has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2000-07-03 - 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”).
...Consolidation: Multiple Respondents
The amended Complaint was filed in relation to nominally three different domain name registrants. The
Complainant alleges that the domain name registrants are the same entity or mere alter egos of each other,
or under common control. ...
2026-02-27 - 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 Respondent is apparently an individual based in Hong Kong, China.
The disputed domain name was registered on December 28, 2025, and the disputed domain
name was registered on December 26, 2025. ...
2026-05-07 - Case Details
The Respondent is Domain Admin, Totaldomain Privacy Ltd, Panama.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a
PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).
3. .../Angelica Lodigiani/
Angelica Lodigiani
Sole Panelist
Date: November 27, 2023
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Clopay Corporation v. Domain Admin, Totaldomain Privacy Ltd
Case No. D2023-4107
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. ...
2023-12-06 - Case Details
The Respondent is Name Redacted1, Nigeria.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with
GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaints 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”).
1 The Respondent appears to have used the name of a third party when registering the disputed domain name. ...
2024-01-22 - Case Details
The Respondent is Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States / Name Redacted.1
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Wild West Domains,
LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Domain Name is an intentional misspelling of the
Complainant’s trademark, adding a second “i” to the “hill” portion of the Domain Name.
...
2022-05-27 - Case Details
Respondent is Info Admin, Firstoniste, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. ...Instead, Respondent
appears to have registered the disputed domain name solely to take advantage of the registered
FIRSTONSITE trademarks by registering a nearly identical disputed domain name.
...
2026-03-24 - Case Details
The Respondent is Joney Singhal, K4 Media & Technologies LLP, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case
that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In particular, this Panel
agrees with earlier panel views that the use of a disputed domain name to offer unauthorized downloading
from Instagram cannot constitute any legitimate or fair use (see Meta Platforms, Inc. v. ...
2024-10-03 - Case Details
The Respondent is Domain Admin, Privatewhois biz, Turkey / Mustafa Dindar, Turkey.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Reg2C.com 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”).
...
2019-07-29 - Case Details
The Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc., Panama / Gary Brown, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...The addition of a dictionary term (or terms) to a complainant’s mark does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity, see Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Henry Chan,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0056. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ONLYFANS Mark. ...
2021-05-06 - Case Details
The Respondent is WhoisGuard, Inc., Panama / citifxtrust citifxtrust , United Kingdom.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...The addition of a dictionary term (or terms) to a complainant’s mark is insufficient to dispel the confusing similarity, see Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Henry Chan,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0056. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CITIFX Mark. ...
2021-05-18 - Case Details