The Respondent is Xiang Yan, Yan Xiang, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with DropCatch.com LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Numerous UDRP panels have recognized that the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark. Such findings were confirmed, for example, within the case Quixtar Investments Inc. v. ...
2022-02-21 - Case Details
Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Domain Name was registered in 2019, more than 30 years after Complainant began using the Mark. Respondent was therefore aware of Complainant’s domain names and websites prior to its registration of the Domain Name. ...
2020-01-07 - Case Details
The Respondent is Hesamaldin Amininejad, Iran (Islamic Republic of).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with IRNIC.
3. ...The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its well-known name because that is the only component of the Domain Name.
...
2021-04-08 - Case Details
Wal-Mart
Stores Inc v. Walmarket Canada, WIPO Case No. D2000-0150 relating to the
domain name and Inter-IKEA v. ...A generally applied test
is therefore whether a Respondent has attempted to sell the domain name(s) for
a sum in excess of the Respondent’s out of pocket expenses in registering the
domain name.
...
2001-07-09 - Case Details
The Respondent is Hermansyah Hermansyah, Cambodia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the
“Registrar”).
3. ...The Respondent acquired the disputed domain name at some point in October 2022, after the Complainant
unintentionally failed to renew it. The Respondent used the disputed domain name for a gambling site.
...
2023-02-27 - 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 now very well-established in UDRP precedent, including numerous decisions previously rendered by this Panel, that a minor variation to a mark is usually insufficient in and of itself, when used in forming a domain name that results from modifying the mark, to confer requisite and sufficient distinctiveness to that name to avoid user confusion. ...
2018-09-03 - Case Details
The Respondent is Perfect Privacy, LLC, United States / Amitava Saha, Firstcry, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Network Solutions, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (“RDNH”) is defined under the Rules as “using the Policy in bad faith to
attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name”.
...
2022-05-12 - Case Details
Respondent is Privacy Administrator, Anonymize, Inc., United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Epik, Inc. (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Complainant’s rights in the FACEBOOK Mark predate by over a decade the registration of the disputed domain name. The Panel agrees with previous panels that, due to the worldwide reputation of Complainant’s FACEBOOK mark, it is implausible that Respondent was unaware of Complainant’s mark when it registered the disputed domain name (see, for example, Facebook Inc. v. ...
2020-11-10 - Case Details
The Respondent is Mohan Krishna Chagalamarri, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Doman Name”) is registered with Google LLC (the
“Registrar”).
3. ...The Domain Name incorporates the entire trademark, and the trademark is readily recognizable within the
Domain Name, notwithstanding the addition of the acronym “nft” before the trademark. ...
2023-04-28 - Case Details
The Respondent is Scott Fairbairn of Gaithersburg, Maryland, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with 1&1 Internet AG.
3. ...The Complainant argues that both of these factors demonstrate that the Respondent does not carry on business under the Domain Name and has no right to use the Domain Name.
The third ground upon which the Complainant relies is that the Domain Name was and is used in bad faith. ...
2009-12-16 - Case Details
The Respondent is Aleksandr Vasilenko, AirQode, Germany.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain
name for the following reasons: (i) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name;
(ii) the Respondent has not been authorized by the Complainant to use the disputed domain name; (iii) the
Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or
services, nor is the Respondent making any legitimate noncommercial use of the disputed domain name.
...
2023-12-14 - Case Details
The Respondent is 周建立 (Zhou Jian Li), China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd. ...Respondent
The Respondent is apparently an individual resident in China.
C. The Disputed Domain Name
The disputed domain name was registered on August 12, 2016.
D. Use of the Disputed Domain Name
The disputed domain name is not resolved to any active website.
5. ...
2022-01-31 - Case Details
The Respondent is Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Johnson Kufor, Ryker,
United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The Disputed Domain Name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...After a complainant has made a prima facie case, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to
present evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. See, e.g.,
Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455.
...
2022-08-04 - Case Details
Further, the Complainant claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name because he has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services, is not known under the disputed domain name or any name that is similar to the disputed domain name, tarnishes the Trademark and the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not constitute a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
...Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant must show a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, which the Respondent may rebut (e.g., Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2017-06-06 - Case Details
The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The disputed domain name incorporates the BETS10 trademark in its entirety. Numerous UDRP panels have recognized that incorporating a trademark in its entirety can be sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name is at least confusingly similar to a registered trademark (see, e.g., PepsiCo, Inc. v. ...
2017-09-14 - Case Details
Turner, Engineering, Inc., United States of America (“United States”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...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. ...
2025-10-27 - Case Details
The Respondent is Techy Sparks, Singapore.
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 identical to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2025-06-26 - Case Details
Respondent is Cookie man, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. ...https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Asurion, LLC v. Cookie man
Case No. D2024-1112
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2024-05-27 - Case Details
The Respondent is Branko Blagojevic, GoodDay, Serbia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...Leppink
Sole Panelist
Date: January 10, 2025
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Dinotech Limited v. Branko Blagojevic, GoodDay
Case No. D2024-4895
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. ...
2025-01-14 - Case Details
The Respondent is SEDIPSSA Comercializadora S.A de C.V., Mexico.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Tucows Inc. ...The disputed domain name was registered on December 31, 2023. The record shows the website at the
disputed domain name has no active content.
5. ...
2025-01-30 - Case Details