The Respondent is E MI musicgroup, c/o Diego Ortiz, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Go Daddy Software.
3. ...These are descriptive and generic words. In Sanofi-Aventis v. Direct Response Marketing aka DRM,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0661 the panel held that the addition of generic and/or descriptive words to a trademark does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the trademark. ...
2007-11-06 - Case Details
Respondent is Tim Jevon of Rotorua, Bay of Plenty, New Zealand, self-represented.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with eNom (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").
...
2015-02-16 - Case Details
The Respondent is Hanzala Hassan, Pakistan.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Hostinger Operations, UAB (the “Registrar”).
3. ...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.
/Adam Taylor/
Adam Taylor
Sole Panelist
Date: October 6, 2025
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Scribd, Inc. v. ...
2025-10-16 - Case Details
Respondent is Domain Admin, U.S.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The Domain Name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Epik LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...case=D2000-1774
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
MaxMind Inc. v. Domain Admin
Case No. D2025-0018
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2025-04-11 - 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”).
...It contends that, in the case of the disputed domain name , the disputed domain
name combines the abbreviation “TB” for its trademark with the geographical identifier “za” and the term
“online”.
...
2023-10-25 - Case Details
The Respondent is Tian Qing of Beijing, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (“the Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC. ...The Domain Name involves the addition of a country’s name to the trade mark combined with the suffix “s” and the necessary generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. ...
2014-09-03 - Case Details
Respondent is Megan Gomez, Gomez Megan, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Web Commerce Communications Limited
dba WebNic.cc (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”).
...
2024-04-05 - Case Details
The Respondent is Ruslan Klishko, of Russian Federation.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with AE Domain Administration (.aeDA).
3. ...The first two words of the
Complainant’s trademark are reproduced within the disputed domain name.
The Panel finds the Complainant’s trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. ...
2024-10-10 - Case Details
In cases where a
domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant
mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar
to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing.
.../Theda König Horowicz/
Theda König Horowicz
Sole Panelist
Date: September 26, 2023
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
ABG Volcom LLC v. Web Commerce Communications Limited, Client Care
Case No. D2023-3059
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. ...
2023-10-04 - Case Details
The Respondent is Ali Mohammed Ahmed, Afakcenter of Baghdad, Iraq.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with PDR Ltd., d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, has not made any preparations to use the Disputed Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, and has not used the Disputed Domain Name for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use purpose.
...
2017-10-13 - Case Details
The Respondent is Navid Ur Rahman, Navisoft Digital Services, Pakistan.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain
name is identical to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2024-10-21 - Case Details
The Respondent is Ihor Salo, Ukraine.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s INSTAGRAM 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 a registered trademark (see PepsiCo, Inc. v. ...
2021-06-15 - Case Details
The Respondent is Wei Zhao1, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...See Société d’Economie Mixte d’Aménagement et de Gestion du Marché d’intérêt National de la Région Parisienne v Monsieur Romain Tournier,
WIPO Case No. D2016-2084.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s RUNGIS MARCHÉ INTERNATIONAL semi-figurative mark and its company name Rungis Marché International.
...
2021-08-06 - 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 Respondent is Shou Yutong, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc. ...There is no disclaimer present
on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves and considering that the disputed domain name
is a single-letter variation of the Complainant’s legitimate domain name, , it is clear
that the Respondent sought to impersonate the Complainant via the disputed domain name and its content.
...
2024-11-28 - Case Details
The Respondent is Kamil Akdogan, Fibanet of Konya, Turkey, self-represented.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name in issue (the "Disputed Domain Name") is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the "Registrar").
3. ...The Complainant has therefore established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name and thereby the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to produce evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name (see for example Do The Hustle, LLC v. ...
2015-05-08 - Case Details
The Respondent is kivan nvrvzi gvrabi, Iran (Islamic Republic of).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with CSL Computer Service Langenbach GmbH dba Joker.com (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Burn World-Wide, Ltd. d/b/a BGT Partners v. Banta Global Turnkey Ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0470.
Generally speaking, a finding that a domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith requires an inference to be drawn that the respondent in question has registered and is using the disputed domain name to take advantage of its significance as a trademark owned by (usually) the complainant.
...
2021-08-30 - Case Details
The Respondent is SAK DAGOUE, Benin.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Hostinger, UAB (the
“Registrar”).
3. ...There are no rights or legitimate interests held by the Respondent in respect of the Domain Name. The
Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name nor does the Respondent have any authorization
from the Complainant to register the Domain Name. ...
2023-04-28 - Case Details
The Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc., Panama / Daniel Groommer, Czech Republic.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Such misspellings are considered by UDRP panels to be confusingly similar for the purposes of the first element. See, e.g., Fuji Photo Film U.S.A. v. LaPorte Holdings,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0971.
The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is not to be taken into account when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark.
...
2019-10-29 - 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”).
...Particularly, in disputed domain name the letter “o” is omitted, in disputed domain name the second “l” is omitted, in disputed domain name the final “u” is substituted by an “i” and in disputed domain name the “o” is substituted by an “i”. ...
2020-10-20 - Case Details