The Respondent is Ali Bing, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Wild West
Domains, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...In addition to this, the Panel considers the fact that for its official
(corporate) website the Complainant uses the domain name , and the Domain Name is
almost identical to the Complainant’s domain name.
...
2022-12-27 - Case Details
The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with BigRock Solutions Pvt Ltd. ...The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and it has not acquired any trademark rights related to the disputed domain name.
...
2017-09-06 - Case Details
KABUSHIKI KAISHA ICHITOKU
The Respondent:
Bramson Enterprises
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The Disputed Domain Name:
rikio.com
The Registrar with which the domain name is registered:
Name: Bulkregister.com, Inc.
...Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, the Policy Paragraph 4(a) requirements are met, namely:
(i) The Respondent’s domain name “rikio.com" is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trademarks,
(ii) The Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the domain name “rikio.com”; and
(iii) The domain name “rkkio.com” was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2000-11-02 - Case Details
The Respondent is BMR Securities Pty Limited of Darlinghurst, New South Wales, Australia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name ("Domain Name") is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the "Registrar").
3. ...As the Domain Name reproduces the GOGO Mark in its entirety the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the GOGO Mark. ...
2017-12-19 - Case Details
The Respondent is kin ozley, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (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”).
...
2025-12-10 - Case Details
The Respondent is Jeremiah Long, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Moreover, there is no disclaimer of affiliation with Julia Child or her successor-in-interest, and the
risk of false association is high with such a confusingly similar domain name. See Everytown for Gun Safety
Action Fund, Inc. v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1249561463 / Steve Coffman, WIPO Case No. ...
2026-05-04 - Case Details
Respondent is “James DAVIS”, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with IONOS SE (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. ...
2025-06-10 - Case Details
The Respondent is ASDAQ.com, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with BulkRegister.com.
3. ...It is thus apt
to confuse consumers (see e.g. Inter-IKEA Systems B.V. v. Evezon Co. Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0437, ).
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has defaulted and thus provided no evidence of any legitimate right or interest in the domain name. ...
2004-07-08 - 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”).
...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy
establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall
be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain
name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a
respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. ...
2024-01-02 - Case Details
The Complainant holds valid registrations for the RABANNE trademark. The Domain Names incorporate this
trademark in its entirety. As numerous UDRP panels have held, incorporating a trademark in its entirety is
sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark (see PepsiCo,
Inc. v. .../Piotr Nowaczyk/
Piotr Nowaczyk
Sole Panelist
Date: November 12, 2025
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Paco Rabanne v. John Doe
Case No. D2025-3872
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2025-11-18 - Case Details
case=D2009-1788
page 2
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
.../Mihaela Maravela/
Mihaela Maravela
Sole Panelist
Date: March 19, 2025
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Arm Limited v. Name Redacted
Case No. D2025-0321
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Names and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2025-03-21 - 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”).
...As can be seen in The Canadian Hockey Association and The Canadian Olympic
Committee v. Lin Lin, WIPO Case No. D2016-0322, the panel found that the content of the website which
purported from the disputed domain name could be relevant to analyze if there was any intent by a
respondent to create confusion with a complainant’s trademark.
...
2022-11-15 - Case Details
ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
CKE Restaurants, Inc. v. Domain Privacy, Domain Name Privacy Inc
Case No. D2024-1712
1. The Parties
Complainant is CKE Restaurants, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by
Brand Enforcement Team 101 Domain, United States.
...Sole Panelist
Date: June 25, 2024
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
CKE Restaurants, Inc. v. Domain Privacy, Domain Name Privacy Inc
Case No. D2024-1712
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. ...
2024-07-08 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
6.1 Procedural Issues
A. Multiple Domain Name Registrants
The Complaint initiates disputes in relation to several nominally different domain name registrants. ...The disputed domain name registrants did not comment on the Complainant’s request.
Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules states that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. ...
2020-10-16 - Case Details
The Complainant was the former owner of the disputed domain name and due to an unfortunate error the domain name was not timely renewed. When the Complainant tried to renew the disputed domain name, it was not possible because by then the current domain name owner – the Respondent – had registered the domain name.
5. ...Consequently, the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s MAPRIN trademark.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
...
2011-03-21 - Case Details
The Respondent is Host Master, Transure Enterprise Ltd, United States of America (“USA”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Above.com, Inc. ...The Complainant
submits that the last part of the disputed domain name “acadey” is an invented word and has no conceptual
page 3
meaning so users will likely misread the disputed domain name to be the Complainant’s Mark, and,
therefore, read the disputed domain name as “academy”.
...
2022-12-12 - Case Details
The Respondent is Yokngshen Kliang, Nanning, Guangxi, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Tucows Inc.
3. ...The Panel also notes that the domain name, clearly registered in bad faith,
has not been used at all for the past 4 years. This passive holding of a domain
name can be seen as use in bad faith (Telstra Corporation Ltd. v. ...
2004-03-03 - Case Details
See also Ansell Healthcare Products Inc. v. Australian Therapeutics Supplies Pty, Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0110, stating, “The incorporation of a Complainant’s well-known trademark in the registered Domain Name is considered sufficient to find the Domain Name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark”.
...See Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. v. ChinaVogue.com,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0615 (ordering transfer where complainant’s mark was strong, and respondent provided no evidence of any actual or contemplated good faith use of the passively-held domain name). ...
2020-03-27 - Case Details
The Panel notes that the purchase of the related domain name , the submission of a Periodical Declaration to the Menemen Public Prosecutor’s Office and even the use of the Disputed Domain Name were made after the Complainant’s cease and desist letter, which the Panel considers, under paragraph 4 (c) (i) of the Policy, as “a notice of the dispute” (see Retecasa SpA v. ...Concerning the Respondents’ use of the Disputed Domain Name, the Panel notes that the Respondents are incorrect in asserting that they started using the Disputed Domain Name “just after a few days following the purchase of the said domain name”.
...
2008-06-11 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
The disputed domain name is registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp.
...The disputed domain name was registered on May 19, 2021. The disputed domain name was registered on May 26, 2021. ...
2021-12-21 - Case Details