The Respondent is Anupam Kachhap, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Spaceship, 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. ...
2026-01-06 - Case Details
The Respondent is Web Commerce Communications Limited, Client Care, Malaysia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Alibaba.com Singapore E-
Commerce Private Limited (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The entirety of the mark is reproduced and is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly,
the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy.
...
2024-03-22 - Case Details
The Respondent is Tisa A Johnson, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC (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.
...
2025-01-31 - Case Details
The Respondent is Hulmiho Ukolen, Poste restante of Finland.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with AEserver FZE (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal
requirements of the Qatar Domains Registry Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the
Rules for Qatar Domains Registry Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO
Supplemental Rules for Qatar Domains Registry Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the
“Supplemental Rules”).
...
2024-08-12 - 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”).
...However, some indication of the Respondent's activities can be seen from the evidence the Complainant has adduced, including the websites “www.intsasanpaolo.com” and “www.intessanpaolo.com” and another domain name dispute decision Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A v. VPDD UBGM LTD.,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0553, (June 5, 2007). ...
2009-08-17 - 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”).
...UDRP panels have declined to find “fair-use” or bona fide use when the trademark per se has been used in the disputed domain name by a respondent for commentary (considering the nature of the disputed domain name). See Puravankara Projects Limited v. ...
2018-12-07 - Case Details
The Respondents are Sergey Popov, Russian Federation (First Respondent) and Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp., the Bahamas (Second Respondent).
2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names (first disputed domain name) and (second disputed domain name) are registered with Nicenic International Group Co., Limited; the disputed domain name (third disputed domain name) is registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp (collectively the “Registrar”).
3. ...The website to which the first disputed domain name resolves is in English, the website of the third disputed domain name is in Russian. Apart from the language difference, it otherwise appears to be very similar to the website to which the first disputed domain name resolves. ...
2020-02-14 - Case Details
The Registrar also provided the full contact details which it held in respect of the Domain Names.
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the 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”).
...Procedural Ruling
Under paragraph 3(c) of the Rules, a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain-name holder. This rule has been interpreted as permitting a single complaint in relation to a number of domain names whose registrant is in effect the same entity, even though different names are used in the contact details held by the registrar or registrars: see, for example General Electric Company v. ...
2009-08-31 - Case Details
The Respondent is George Moisidis, Greece.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu. ...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”).
...
2025-03-28 - Case Details
The Respondent is Alexande Miller, France.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Gandi SAS (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Thus, the registration of a domain name that comprises such a well-known and anterior trademark suggests
that the Respondent had the Complainant’s name and trademark in mind when registering the disputed
domain name. ...
2023-01-27 - Case Details
The disputed domain name adopts the
Complainant’s HEETS Trademark. It is well established that the applicable generic Top-Level Domain
(“gTLD”) in a domain name is viewed as a standard registration requirement and, as such, is disregarded.
...The website resolving from the disputed domain name does
not meet the requirements set out in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc, WIPO Case No. ...
2022-09-19 - Case Details
The Respondent is Fedorov Vladimir, Kazakhstan.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Nicenic International Group Co.,
Limited (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on October 28, 2024.
The disputed domain name currently redirects to the domain name, which hosts a
website that provides information and links to various trading apps (e.g., Quotex and Binomo). ...
2025-05-21 - Case Details
The Respondent is Teodor Hansen, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with
NameCheap, Inc. ...Dernbach
Sole Panelist
Date: July 2, 2025
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Elevate Credit Service, LLC v. Teodor Hansen
Case No. D2025-1840
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2025-07-07 - Case Details
Respondent is Dincer UYGUR, Plus4web Internet Teknolojileri Ltd Sti., Türkiye.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with One.com A/S (the
“Registrar”).
3. ...As of January 3, 2025, the Domain Name resolved to a largely blank web page which stated that
the Domain Name was available for USD 500 and provided an email address for a prospective buyer to use.
5. ...
2025-02-17 - Case Details
The Respondent is Ray Salyer, New Gear Media, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Complainant contends that the Complainant has never authorized the
Respondent to use the disputed domain name, that the Respondent is not generally known by the disputed
domain name, has never operated a business under the disputed domain name, has not advertised the
disputed domain name, and has never engaged in any bona fide commercial activity in connection with the
disputed domain name. ...
2025-10-02 - Case Details
The Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, United States of America / 肖伟冬, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Palazzi
Sole Panelist
Date: March 14, 2022
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
VKR Holding A/S v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot / 肖伟冬
Case No. D2022-0004
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. ...
2022-03-21 - Case Details
The Respondent is Paul Brodeick of London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Melbourne IT Ltd.
3. ...The Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, and has not been licensed or otherwise permitted to use the trademark as a domain name or otherwise. ...
2010-03-16 - Case Details
The Respondent is Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Victor Mike, Canada.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...The disputed domain name has active name servers set up, indicating that the Respondent is using the
disputed domain name for phishing emails.
...
2022-09-09 - Case Details
The Domain Name and Registrar
2.1 The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with eNom, Inc. ...The Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s mark VELUX in its entirety. The Domain Name also comprises the letters “sil” and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.net”, but these additions do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2017-08-25 - Case Details
Respondent is Destiny Mark, Infinity Design, Nigeria.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with OwnRegistrar, Inc. ...Here, the SOLFEX mark is fully incorporated and clearly visible in the disputed domain name. The
addition of an extra letter “f” in the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity
between the disputed domain name and the SOLFEX mark for purposes of the Policy. ...
2025-10-27 - Case Details