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 Panel notes that the
Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names did not fulfill the requirements that, according to the “Oki
Data test”, a reseller or distributor should meet in order to make a bona fide offering of goods and services
and thus have a legitimate interest in a domain name incorporating a third-party trademark (see the leading
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 5
case Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ...
2022-09-12 - 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”).
...The Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, owns no trade mark registrations for the disputed domain name or any portion thereof, and has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name.
3. ...
2016-08-26 - Case Details
While it is not necessary that the holder of the subject domain name has the permission of the trademark owner, it is usually necessary for the holder to satisfy the so-called Oki-data factors (after Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ...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.
...
2022-02-16 - Case Details
Mere ownership of a domain name is not
sufficient to show that a respondent has been commonly known by the domain name.
...The addition of the term “marketing” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between this
Domain Name and the Trade Marks (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8; see also, inter alia, TPI Holdings,
Inc. v. ...
2023-12-19 - Case Details
The Respondent is Bangkit Sanjaya, Indonesia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V.
...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.
/Olga Zalomiy/
Olga Zalomiy
Sole Panelist
Date: November 8, 2022
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Canva Pty Ltd v. ...
2022-11-18 - Case Details
The Respondent is Whois Privacy by Private by Design, LLC, United States / Hoan Mr, Viet Nam.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Porkbun 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 by the Domain Name nor does the Respondent have any authorization from the Complainant to register the Domain Name. ...
2021-12-20 - Case Details
The Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc., Panama / Leonardes Blomfield, France.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...According to prior UDRP panel decisions, it is sufficient that the complainant shows prima facie that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in order to shift the burden of production to the respondent (see Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2020-02-18 - Case Details
The Respondent is Virtual Real Estate Limited, Gibraltar, United Kingdom.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Respondent’s webpage
has previously stated that the disputed domain name is for sale, and the disputed domain name continues to
be offered for sale by the Respondent. ...
2022-12-12 - Case Details
The Respondent is Ali Esmaelnejad, Hungary.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with CSL Computer Service Langenbach GmbH
dba Joker.com (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Ali Esmaelnejad
Case No. D2022-3667
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2022-11-21 - Case Details
The Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, United States / Hao Zhang, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...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”).
...
2022-06-02 - Case Details
The Respondent is Mike Tailor, Kenya.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameSilo, 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”).
...
2022-09-05 - Case Details
The Respondent is Geoffrey CUVELIER, Spain.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Hosting Concepts
B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu. ...There is no
evidence that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name as a trademark or acquired trademark
rights. There is no evidence of the Respondent’s 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. ...
2026-01-22 - Case Details
The Respondent is Christophe Schmidt, Germany.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (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. ...
2025-02-14 - Case Details
The Respondent is Mihaela Sinclair, Romania.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Porkbun 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. ...
2024-09-10 - Case Details
The Respondent is Privacy Service Provided by Wihtheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland /Akkounte Botte,
Botte Accounting LLC, Germany.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (“Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc.
...The Domain Name consists of the SPOTIFY Mark, with the addition of the ccTLD “.ac”. Discounting the
ccTLD as a necessary part of a domain name the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s SPOTIFY
Mark. ...
2022-03-01 - Case Details
The Respondent is Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Abderrahmane Boufim, Morocco.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Respondent has not substantively responded to the Complainant’s contentions 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.
...
2022-02-09 - Case Details
The Respondent is Candra Candra, CANDRA, Cambodia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Namecheap, Inc. ...The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The
Complainant notes that the Respondent acquired the disputed domain name after the Complainant had
inadvertently allowed the disputed domain name to lapse. ...
2025-07-14 - Case Details
Respondent is Milen Radumilo of Bucharest, Romania.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is , registered with NAMEPAL.COM #8013 ("Registrar").
3. ...See WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 3.8.
3 Complainant originally included claims relating to this domain name in its Complaint in Bharti Airtel Limited v. Oleg Mandrik,
WIPO Case No. D2015-1815, which involved the same identity shield service. ...
2015-12-18 - Case Details
The Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, United States / Ya Lin, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The disputed domain name does not present any website content and appears to be an inactive domain. The disputed domain name is not being used. ...
2021-05-18 - Case Details
The Center verified that 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”).
...Complainant
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in which she has common law trademark rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name is used for commercial gain to mislead Internet users to an adult entertainment site that is not authorized or affiliated with Complainant.
...
2010-08-18 - Case Details