Thus, it is not surprising that in BMW AG v. Loophole,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1156, the panel rejected such an argument in remarks that seem applicable to the present case:
“The Respondent has failed to produce evidence of any legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. ...Nor did such an argument avail the respondent in FIFA v. Andy Muffy,
WIPO Case No. DTV2001-0031, in seeking to retain the domain name , to contend that his business was “commonly known as “Forrestry Information Forum of Australia”.
...
2008-01-18 - Case Details
The Respondent is BIN ZHAO, medtronex.com, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Tucows Inc. (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The comparison of the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s trademark simply requires a visual and
aural comparison of the disputed domain name to the proven trademarks. ...
2025-02-19 - Case Details
The Respondent is Mr. David Black of Sliema, Malta.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with 1&1 Internet AG.
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”).
...
2011-07-11 - Case Details
The Respondent is Whois Privacy Protection Service by onamae.com, Japan / Tran Xuan Quy, Viet Nam.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GMO Internet, Inc. d/b/a Discount-Domain.com and Onamae.com (the “Registrar”).
3. ...It further claims the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It argues that the use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent is in bad faith and, therefore, requests the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant accordingly.
...
2019-08-28 - Case Details
The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's WHITE RIBBON Trade Marks.
(b) The Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, nor any name corresponding to it. ...Either way, the Panel finds that it is irrelevant that users may subsequently realize that the Disputed Domain Name is not associated with the Complainant once they land on the Respondent's website. As stated in Paris Hilton v. ...
2016-09-14 - 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").
...Currently an active webpage on which financial services are offered resolves from the first disputed domain name, whereas the second disputed domain name redirects users to the first disputed domain name.
5. ...
2015-05-01 - Case Details
The Respondent is “Well Domains are either owned by us or Client Managed”, of Yesilkent, Sariz, Turkey.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.
3. ...The Complainant’s prior rights would themselves bar the Respondent from being known by the domain name.
The Respondent is also not making legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name. ...
2008-06-24 - Case Details
Respondent is Manlidy, GNN, Singapore.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with OwnRegistrar, Inc. ...In comparing Complainant’s mark with the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the disputed domain
name is confusingly similar to this trademark as the trademark is clearly recognizable within the disputed
domain name, save for the inversion of the letters “t” and “e”. ...
2022-11-17 - 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 disputed domain name was registered on March 1, 2016.
The disputed domain name does not resolve to any page.
5. ...
2016-07-01 - Case Details
The Respondent is sezer karabulut, sezer limited, Türkiye.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, as it is not possible to conceive of any
plausible actual or contemplated use of the disputed domain name that would not be illegitimate.
...
2025-05-26 - Case Details
The Respondent is Mitra Mohammadi West, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Realtime Register B.V. ...The disputed domain name resolves to a parked page. Panels have also found that the non-use of a domain
name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. ...
2024-11-25 - Case Details
The Respondent is Kazim Kestor, Turkey.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (“Domain Name”) is registered with Hostinger, UAB (the “Registrar”).
3. ...A reseller or distributor can be making a bona fide offering of goods or services and thus have a right or legitimate interest in a domain name only if the following cumulative requirements are met (Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-04-19 - Case Details
The Respondent is Perfect Privacy, LLC, United States of America / Milen Radumilo, Romania.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Nameselite, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
As stated in many decisions rendered under the Policy (e.g. Robert Ellenbogen v. Mike Pearson,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0001) both conditions, registration and used in bad faith, must be demonstrated; consequently, the Complainant must show that:
- the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent in bad faith, and
- the disputed domain name is being used by the Respondent in bad faith.
...
2020-01-27 - Case Details
The Respondent is Wellsbuck Corporation, n/a,
United States of America (“Respondent”).
2. The Domain Names and Registrar
2.1. The domain name the subject of this Complaint is (“domain name”).
2.2. ...On January 17, 2005, the domain name resolved to a webpage advertising the domain name for sale for the sum of GBP10,000 through an agent, Sedo in Cologne, Germany. ...
2005-04-11 - Case Details
The Respondent is Spiral Matrix, of Eldoret, Kenya.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Intercosmos
Media Group, Inc. d/b/a directNIC.com.
3. ...Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element that the Complainants must establish is that the Domain Name
is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trademarks. It
has been established that when a domain name incorporates entirely a complainant’s
registered trademark, with the addition of a descriptive term, this is sufficient
to establish that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar for the
purposes of the Policy (Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...
2007-01-17 - Case Details
The Respondent is Li Jian Fan of Putian, Fujian, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with eName Technology Co., Ltd. ...These facts show that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is not in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. See Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ...
2018-10-29 - Case Details
The Respondent is Shanna Brooks, Nigeria.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com
(the “Registrar”).
3. ...There is no evidence that the Respondent is known by the disputed domain name. On the contrary, the
Respondent has used the disputed domain name in a phishing attack, which was held in Kimley-Horn and
Associates, Inc. v. ...
2022-08-22 - Case Details
The Respondent is Huan Wang of Hefei, Anhui, China / WhoIsGuard Protected, WhoIsGuard, Inc. of Nobby Beach, Panama.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with eNom (the “Registrar”).
3. ...It is well established that a domain name that wholly incorporates a trademark generally may be confusingly similar to such trademark for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of generic terms (Guccio Gucci S.p.A. v. ...
2015-07-24 - Case Details
The Respondent is Victoria Doneski, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Spaceship, Inc. ...The disputed
domain name consists of the Complainant’s THOUGHTWORKS mark (and as such is similar to the
Complainant’s own domain name ). ...
2025-05-20 - Case Details
Respondent is James Aki, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. .../Lorelei Ritchie/
Lorelei Ritchie
Sole Panelist
Date: September 5, 2025
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Civitas Resources, Inc. v. James Aki
Case No. DCO2025-0057
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2025-09-10 - Case Details