The Respondent is Quan Zhongjun, Juanita Co., China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Cosmotown, Inc. ...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”).
...
2024-12-19 - Case Details
The Respondent is Loriu Asans, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).
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”).
...
2025-09-23 - Case Details
Respondent is Andrew Andrawos, Jungle Tech, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...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”).
...
2025-03-07 - Case Details
The Respondent is User User, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Panel finds the mark GENERALI is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the
disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2024-10-09 - Case Details
The Respondent is Faiz Siddiqi of Leicestershire United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Wild West Domains, Inc.
3. ...g) To the Complainant’s knowledge the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in particular:
(i) It has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use any of its trade marks;
(ii) or to register a domain name incorporating ”O2”;
(iii) the Respondent has no relationship with the Complainant, or permission from it to use its trade marks incorporating “O2”;
(iv) despite the Respondent registering the disputed domain name on October, 9 2008 it has not used or made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in the connection with a bona fida offering of goods or services;
(v) the Respondent, whether as an individual, business or other organization, has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name;
(vi) the Respondent does not have a registered trade mark or service mark for the “O2” at the UK Intellectual Property Office or OHIM; and
(vii) the Respondent is not making a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name in that it is not providing any services.
...
2010-11-02 - Case Details
The Respondent is Mou Jiaomei of Dongguan, Guangdong Province, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The ability for generic words and geographic locations, such as “Hong Kong”, to distinguish the disputed domain name from the trademark of the Complainant is limited. See for example Alstom v. Yulei,
WIPO Case No. ...
2013-04-16 - Case Details
The Respondent is Lei Chen, Hong Kong, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”).
3. ...This makes the
registration of the disputed domain name a bad faith registration.
With respect to the use of the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that by redirecting the disputed domain
name to the website of the Complainant, the Respondent creates confusion as to the sponsorship or
affiliation between the Complainant and the disputed domain name. ...
2024-04-19 - Case Details
The Respondent is Guo Qing Zhang, Zhan Guo Qing, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Network Solutions, LLC (the “Registrar”).
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”).
...
2020-12-07 - Case Details
Szkolna 5, 62-080 Tarnowo Podgórne, Poland.
2. Domain Name and Registrar
The Domain Name at issue is "viterra.com"; hereinafter referred to as the "Domain Name". ...According to the principle negativa non sunt propanda it is sufficient for the Complainant to establish a prima facie evidence that the Respondent lacks a legitimate interest in the Domain Name (see also Eauto, Inc. v. Available-Domain-Names.com, d/b/a Intellectual-Assets.com, Inc., case no. ...
2000-08-28 - 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").
...In particular, there are UDRP decisions stating that the incorporation of the trademark and a generic word in a domain name is misleading and confusingly similar to the trademark owned by the complainant (LEGO Juris A/S v. ...
2017-02-03 - Case Details
The Respondent is Dipak Kumbhakar, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, 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”).
...
2024-08-12 - Case Details
Many such cases involve the
respondent’s use of the domain name to send deceptive emails. . ..”
An example of one such case is Aria Foods Amba v. Michael Guthrie M. .../Warwick Smith/
Warwick Smith
Sole Panelist
Date: September 8, 2023
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Kroo Bank Ltd v. David Bates
Case No. D2023-3030
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2023-09-12 - Case Details
Respondent is Chris Ordway, The HEFAR Group, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Af ter a complainant has made a prima facie case, the burden of production shifts to a respondent to present
evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See, e.g., Croatia Airlines d.d. v.
Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455.
...
2024-01-25 - Case Details
The Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, United States of America / tanyeli tekin, Türkiye.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Also, the Complainant claims that its representative made an offer to buy the disputed domain name via
Dan.com and the price of the disputed domain name increased to the amount of USD 75,000.
5. ...
2022-08-11 - 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”).
...Perrigo Company, and Perrigo Pharma International DAC v. Domain Administrator, Fundacion Privacy Services LTD
Case No. D2022-2450
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. ...
2022-09-02 - Case Details
The Respondent is Citrix, Citrix IT Systems of Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India, self-represented.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the "Domain Name") is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the "Registrar").
3. ...The Panel is also satisfied that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name or any corresponding name and that it is not making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. ...
2018-05-11 - Case Details
The Respondent is George Mark, United States of America (“US”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Squarespace Domains LLC (the
“Registrar”).
3. ...The
disputed domain name incorporates the well-known Trade Mark, so initial interest confusion is inevitable.
The Respondent has used the disputed domain name to send phishing emails.
...
2025-05-02 - Case Details
The Respondent is Isa Misao, South Africa.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...The entirety of the Trade Mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed
domain name is identical to the Trade Mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2025-07-17 - Case Details
The Respondent is Hadar Swersky, Creative Geeks, Cayman Islands, United Kingdom.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...The Domain Name currently does not resolve to an active website. The Domain Name used to resolve to a
website that purported to offer products and services identical to those of the Complainant. ...
2024-03-22 - Case Details
The Respondent is Wei Zhang, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The fourth factor mentioned above, i.e. the implausibility of any good faith use, is more difficult to assess, as indeed the disputed domain name might – at least in theory – be used for the sale of genuine LEGO products in compliance with the conditions of the so-called “Oki Data test” (see Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ...
2019-06-13 - Case Details