The Respondent is Guizhi Li, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Gname.com Pte. ...Hughes
Sole Panelist
Dated: May 11, 2023
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Vix Swimwear, Inc. v. Guizhi Li
Case No. D2023-1169
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History...
2023-05-15 - Case Details
The Respondent is crea8 tek, crea8tek developers, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with OwnRegistrar, Inc. ...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”).
...
2023-02-09 - Case Details
The Respondent is 蒋黎, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with DNSPod, Inc. ...Respondent
The Respondent is located in China.
C. The Disputed Domain Name
The disputed domain name was registered on June 12, 2022.
D. Use of the Disputed Domain Name
The disputed domain name is not resolved to an active web page.
5. ...
2023-09-29 - Case Details
Respondent is Keith Cummingham, United States of America (“United States”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with CloudFlare, 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. ...
2025-09-02 - Case Details
The Respondent is Registration Private/Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States / Eric Winter, France.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Wild West Domains, 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”).
...
2020-11-05 - Case Details
However, the Respondent denies having made a profit from the links on the website connected to the Domain Name.
Although use of a domain name for a parking website, containing sponsored links to third party websites, may be permissible in some circumstances, it would not confer rights or legitimate interests where the website connected to the domain name contains links to websites offering goods or services competing with those of the complainant as such use is held not to constitute a “bona fide offering of goods or services” or a “legitimate noncommercial or fair use” of the domain name (see Sanofi v. ...It follows that the Respondent apparently has (also) chosen the Domain Name in order to take advantage of the reputation of the Trade Mark by attracting customers to its website under the Domain Name who assume that this website is either provided by or has been approved of by the Complainant (see Sanofi v. ...
2015-10-09 - Case Details
The Respondent is Allen Dewett of Delhi, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Network Solutions, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4. See also Ann Summers Limited v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Mingchun Chen,
WIPO Case No. D2018-0625: “The Panel finds that the redirection from the disputed domain name to Complainant’s official website reinforces the likelihood of confusion. ...
2019-03-27 - Case Details
The Respondent is Razvan Ovidiu Moraru, Iasi, Romania and Utah, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with FastDomain, Inc.
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”).
...
2011-11-08 - Case Details
The Respondent is Venture Sales Pty Ltd, Australia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Web Address Registration Pty Ltd.
3. ...Given the Respondent’s
lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and the identity of the disputed domain
name to the First Complainant’s trademark, any use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent almost
certainly implies an affiliation with the Complainants that does not exist. ...
2022-11-21 - Case Details
The Respondent is Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / John Veresa, United States of America (“United States”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...The addition of such 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 GRAND SLAM Mark. ...
2021-08-19 - 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”).
...There is no evidence that Respondent has ever been authorized to use Complainant’s marks in a domain name or otherwise. Likewise, there is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Names, or has made substantial preparations to use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
...
2011-12-02 - Case Details
The Respondent is Rattan Singh Mahon, an individual residing in the United Kingdom.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
2.1. The domain name the subject of this Complaint is "mtvbase.com".
2.2. ...In relation to the domain name "mtvbase.com", the relevant part of this domain name is "mtvbase". This Administrative Panel finds that this part of the domain name is identical to the Complainants’ service mark MTV BASE (the absence of a space in the domain name being of no significance).
...
2001-01-04 - Case Details
Furthermore, the
disputed domain name is being used in bad faith, in view of the phishing and misleading emails sent by the
Respondent under the disputed domain name and the pay-per-click links displayed on the parking page
associated with the disputed domain name.
...Furthermore, the addition of the term “holding” to the disputed domain name is evidence of
the fact that the Respondent wanted to create an immediate association between the disputed domain name
and the Complainant when it registered the disputed domain name. ...
2022-09-05 - Case Details
The Respondent is Inkyu Kim of Koyang, Kyungki, Republic of Korea.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Domain Bank.
3. ...His passive holding of the
disputed domain name amounts to bad faith (see: Telstra Corporation Limited
v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No.D2000-0003).
...
2003-06-30 - 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”).
...This indicates bad faith, because it “gives rise to the strong possibility that Respondent
intended or intends to use the disputed domain name[s] to send emails as part of a fraudulent phishing
scheme.” Altria Group, Inc. and 16 Altria Group Distribution Company v. ...
2025-03-26 - 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 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. ...
2025-07-29 - Case Details
The Center verified that the Complaint [together with the amendment to the Complaint/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”).
...As set out in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v.
ASD, Inc. (WIPO Case No. D2001-0903), service providers using a domain name that contains a third-party
trade mark may be making a bona fide offering of goods or services and thus have a legitimate interest in
such domain name if they meet the following criteria (the “Oki Data criteria”):
(i) the respondent must actually be offering the goods or services at issue;
(ii) the respondent must use the site to sell only the trade marked goods or services;
(iii) the site must accurately and prominently disclose the registrant’s relationship with the trade mark
holder; and
(iv) the respondent must not try to “corner the market” in domain names that reflect the trade mark.
...
2024-10-08 - Case Details
The Respondent is Jgceg Nghde, Hong Kong, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Name.com, 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 disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
/Alistair Payne/
Alistair Payne
Sole Panelist
Date: January 6, 2023
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Barts Beheer B.V. v. ...
2023-01-12 - 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”).
...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. ...
2025-12-17 - Case Details
This is dated September 25, 2020, well over a year after the Respondent registered the disputed domain name and after the Respondent had begun to sell green cleaning products under the disputed domain name. ...The Complainant must prove the conjunctive requirement that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. While attempts have historically been made to imply retroactive bad faith in certain cases, current UDRP jurisprudence is clear that no such approach is permissible and that the respondent must been shown to have known of, and to have targeted, the complainant’s trademark at the date of registration of the disputed domain name (see: Reboxed Limited v. ...
2021-06-28 - Case Details