The Respondent is J. Almeida, Porto, Portugal.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Fushi Tarazu,
Incorporated.
3. ...The domain name under dispute is simply redirected to a domain name registration service provider website. ...
2005-04-26 - Case Details
Moreover, the Respondent’s domain name is very similar to the address for Banca Intesa’s official web site at “www.bancaintesa.it“, which is connected also to the Complainant’s domain name , and is almost identical to the Complainant’s domain name .
...However, as first stated in WIPO
Case No. D2000-0003 Telstra v. Nuclear Marshmallows and repeated
in many subsequent decisions under the UDRP:
“the concept of a domain name “being used in bad faith” is not limited to positive action; inaction is within the concept. ...
2006-09-19 - Case Details
Respondent is LI HE, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...In comparing Complainant’s marks with the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the disputed domain
name is confusingly similar to this mark, as the TF1 mark is clearly recognizable within the disputed domain
name. ...
2023-02-02 - Case Details
The Respondent is Sahir Sahir, Indonesia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...The Respondent has
added MX records to the disputed domain name. Accordingly, there is a high risk that the disputed domain
page 3
name be used in connection with phishing and scams. ...
2022-03-23 - Case Details
The Respondent is Sahir Sahir, Indonesia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...The Respondent has
page 3
added MX records to the disputed domain name. Accordingly, there is a high risk that the disputed domain
name be used in connection with phishing and scams. ...
2022-03-23 - Case Details
The Respondent is Martinex Enterprises, careers-perenco, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Tucows Inc.
...The Domain Name was registered on April 3, 2023. While drafting the decision, the Domain Name does not resolve to an active webpage. ...
2024-01-30 - Case Details
Respondent is pavd astronaut, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with
Sav.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...According to the publicly available WhoIs the Domain Name was registered on January 24, 2025. As at the
date of the Complaint no active website was associated with the Domain Name and the Domain Name
resolved to an error page.
5. ...
2025-04-10 - Case Details
The Respondent is Metodi Darzev, Tool Domains, Bulgaria.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Sav.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Complainant had previously owned the disputed domain name till at least November 2024. After the
expiration of the disputed domain name, it was re-registered on February 9, 2025. ...
2025-10-16 - Case Details
The Respondent is Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Todd Peter, Canada.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...page 3
The disputed domain name does not resolve to a website and there is no evidence that the disputed domain
name is being used for legitimate noncommercial purposes or that a fair use is being made of it. ...
2022-04-25 - Case Details
The Respondent is Amaben Internet Services Inc. of Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Moniker Online Services, LLC.
3. ...See e.g. SingTel Optus Pty v. Xnet,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0734.
Normally speaking, bad faith cannot be found where a domain name is registered before a mark. ...
2011-10-13 - Case Details
The Respondent is SIMON LUBWAMA, Uganda.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...The disputed domain name redirects visitors to the Complainant’s own website .
The Respondent used the disputed domain name to send fraudulent emails impersonating the Complainant.
5. ...
2024-01-03 - Case Details
The Respondent is Whois Protection Service LTD, Australia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with InterNetX
GmbH (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Da Cunha Ferreira
Sole Panelist
Date: May 16, 2025
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Equifax Inc. v. Whois Protection Service LTD
Case No. D2025-1285
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. ...
2025-05-22 - Case Details
The Respondent is Amal Butt, iskills, Pakistan.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...Christie
Presiding Panelist
/Arif Hyder Ali/
Arif Hyder Ali
Panelist
/David Stone/
David Stone
Panelist
Date: June 23, 2025
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Old Kentucky Restaurants Ltd v. Amal Butt, iskills
Case No. D2025-0874
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2025-07-04 - Case Details
The Respondent is Don Quico, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with 1API GmbH (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Further, the disputed domain name appears to be
intended to be a typosquatting domain name only differing from the Complainant’s
domain name (not the subject of these proceedings) by the omission of a hyphen, and the Respondent has
given false contact details to the WhoIs database for the disputed domain name.
...
2025-01-29 - Case Details
The Respondent is Alberto Tosco, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Panel finds that the Complainant’s trade mark is recognizable within the
disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trade mark for
the purposes of the Policy. ...
2024-12-27 - Case Details
The Respondent is Benson McGriffin, Fabelco, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...The Panel finds the dominant part of the mark is included in the disputed domain name and therefore is
recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly
similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2025-10-13 - Case Details
The Respondent is Oleg Shtafienko, Russian Federation.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <1xbet.box> is registered with NameSilo, 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. ...
2024-08-20 - Case Details
The Respondent is Dengpinghua (邓平华), China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Jiangsu Bangning Science & technology Co. ...Moreover, the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7, states: “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” (see also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2020-12-02 - Case Details
The Respondent is Itai Mukonyora, United Kingdom.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).
3. ...See ArcelorMittal SA v. Tina Campbell,
WIPO Case No. DCO2018-0005.
The Panel finds that the conditions in paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are therefore fulfilled in relation to the disputed domain name.
...
2019-12-23 - Case Details
The word “REWRD” is very close to the word “reward” and overall the disputed domain name is understood as meaning SODEXO REWARD HUB. The disputed domain name is also confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark SODEXHO.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and the Respondent has no affiliation, association, sponsorship, or connection with the Complainant and has not been authorized to register and use the disputed domain name.
...
2019-07-12 - Case Details