The Respondent is Elavae EU, Elavae, Ireland.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Tucows
Domains Inc. ...b) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. There is no
evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the name “Elavae”. As the registrations of the
Complainant’s Trademark all predate the registration of the Disputed Domain Name, the Respondent has no
legitimate interests or rights to the Disputed Domain Name. ...
2026-01-09 - Case Details
The Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, United States / Zayed, United Arab Emirates.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Dynadot, 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”).
...
2020-01-09 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to the domain name and with the name and trademark ALOHA POOLS. ...Awadallah, admitted in a telephone conversation with the Managing Director of the Complainant that the Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in ALOHA POOLS, and then registered the domain name on November 7, 2012, and subsequently diverted the disputed domain name to the homepage of the website located at its new domain name; (v) the Respondent does not own any Australian trademark applications or registrations for ALOHA or ALOHA POOLS; (vi) the registration of the disputed domain name itself constitutes passing off and misleading and deceptive conduct under the Australian consumer law, being a misrepresentation that the Respondent has a right to use the name “Aloha” in respect of pools and spas; (vii) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name; and (viii) the disputed domain name is not in use for noncommercial or fair use purposes, as it is being used to misleadingly divert consumers and to promote the Respondent’s activities with the intent for commercial gain.
...
2015-01-09 - Case Details
The contact details in the website to which the disputed domain name resolves refers to contact e-mail addresses linked to the disputed domain name . ...Discussion and Findings
Under the Policy, the Complainant must prove with respect to each disputed domain name that:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which it has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2015-12-08 - Case Details
The Respondent is VARTAN PEREZ, United States of America (“United States”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc. ...The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed
domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2024-06-14 - Case Details
The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (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”).
...
2013-07-23 - Case Details
The Respondent in this administrative proceeding is John Zuccarini, Nassau, Bahamas.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is . The Registrar of the domain name is CSL Computer Service Langenbach GmbH d/b/a Joker.com, Germany.
3. ...The Respondent contends that he has a legitimate interest in the subject domain name "…because the [subject domain name] incorporates merely a misspelling of the common dictionary word ‘vanguard.’" ...
2002-12-02 - Case Details
The Respondent is Ali Elci, Ciproc Gmbh, Germany.
2. The Domain Name, Registry and Registrar
The Registry of the disputed domain name is the European Registry for Internet Domains
(“EURid” or the “Registry”). ...The disputed domain name consists of the BB-HOTEL trademark combined with the letter “s”. The addition
of the letter “s” in the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the
Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. ...
2023-01-04 - Case Details
The Respondent is Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, Panama.
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 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”).
...
2023-03-23 - Case Details
The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisf ied 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”).
...Panels have previously held that a finding of bad faith can be established where a complainant’s trademark
is shown to be well known or in wide use at the time of registration of the disputed domain name (see LEGO
Juris A/S v. store24hour, WIPO Case No. D2013-0091). The Respondent must have been aware of the
Complainant and the Complainant’s Trademark when registering and using the Disputed Domain Names
given the well-known nature of the Complainant’s Trademark and the fact that it was put into use well before
the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Names.
...
2025-12-04 - 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”).
...This action enhances the “initial interest of confusion element”. In LEGO Juris A/S v. Probuilders,
WIPO Case No. D2011-0226, the Panel discussed the use of the Complainants logotype, stating, “In the Panel’s view, it is obvious that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s distinctive and well-known trade mark in mind. ...
2011-11-01 - 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”).
...Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate
rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.
While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that
proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible
task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the
respondent. ...
2024-02-09 - Case Details
The Respondent is Robert Brodi of Dunakeszi, Hungary, self-represented.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Name.com LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The statement that the disputed domain name may be for sale together with the nature of the disputed domain name shows that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to sell it to the Complainant in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy.
...
2015-04-30 - Case Details
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the first amended Complaint and the second 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”).
...The Domain Name resolves to an inactive page. The Panel finds that the Respondent engages in passive holding of the Domain Name, which satisfies in the context of the case the requirements as clarified in the landmark case Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2017-01-26 - Case Details
The Respondent is Name Redacted.1
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...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. ...
2024-01-19 - Case Details
The disputed domain name
was registered in order to prevent the Complainants from adopting the trademark SIEMENS in a
corresponding domain name. ...Christie
Sole Panelist
Date: May 30, 2022
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Siemens AG and Siemens Trademark GmbH & Co. KG v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Saud bashir
Case No. D2022-0969
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. ...
2022-06-15 - Case Details
The terms and conditions
of the registration agreement between the Registrar and the Respondents clearly
incorporate the Policy, so that Respondents were notified of the existence of
the Policy’s provisions for domain name dispute resolution. The Policy contains
in its Paragraph 4(a) the elements to be pleaded in order for a mandatory administrative
proceeding such as this one to be held: Complainant must allege that a (i) Respondent’s
domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark
in which the Complainant has rights; that (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests in the domain name; and that (iii) Respondent’s domain name has been
registered and is being used in bad faith. ...Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy
cites, without limitation, various examples of both registration and
usage of a domain name in bad faith. Complainant has frequently cited the WIPO
Case No. D2000-0003 Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2001-07-03 - Case Details
The Respondent is weber daniel, HAGER ELECTRO SAS, France.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu. ...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”).
...
2021-12-13 - Case Details
The Respondent is Frank Blincow of Newton Mearns, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
2. The Domain Names and Registrars
The disputed domain name is registered with Tucows, Inc. The disputed domain name is registered with CSL Computer Service Langenbach GmbH dba Joker.com.
3. ...
2003-09-04 - 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”).
...The Complainant is further the registered owner of the Turkish Trad...
The disputed domain name was registered on December 5, 2022.
The disputed domain name was registered on March 17, 2022.
...
2023-03-23 - Case Details