Second Respondent is in fact controlling the disputed domain name, being the only entity that knows the ID and password necessary for the domain name transference.
...In support of their arguments, Complainants cite a number of decisions made by previous UDRP panels in similar cases, such as one regarding the withholding of a domain name by the former service provider, where the Panel found the registration of the domain name during the contractual relationship in the name of others than the contracting party constitutes bad faith: Nürmont GmbH v. ...
2012-11-01 - Case Details
Respondent is Matthew Mitchell of Covina, California, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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”).
...
2012-03-08 - Case Details
C. The Disputed Domain Name
The disputed domain name was registered on August 22, 2023.
D. Use of the Disputed Domain Name
The disputed domain name is alleged to have been inactive at the time of filing of the Complaint. ...To the contrary, the disputed domain name has
not been used. Furthermore, the Respondent has offered the disputed domain name for sale, via the
domain name brokerage website hosted by GoDaddy.com, LLC.
...
2025-12-19 - Case Details
An example is Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corporation v. Limpkin Walker,
WIPO Case No. DME2008-0007, in which it was stated: “the addition of the ccTLD “.me” is without legal significance from the standpoint of comparing the Domain Name to the [trademark] because use of a ccTLD (or gTLD) is required of domain name registrants, “.me” is one of only a few such ccTLD's, and “.me” does not serve to identify a specific enterprise as a source of goods or services”.
...Thus, it is this Panel's view that a determination of identicalness and similarity of a .me domain name may in appropriate cases be based on a consideration of the domain name as a whole – that is, of the domain name including the “.me” suffix.
...
2009-11-16 - Case Details
Customer 0163367641, Canada / Gerald Jean Marcel Billion,
France.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with
Tucows Inc. ...In addition, the DNS setup of the Domain Name (with active MX records), along with the composition of the
Domain Name, lead the Panel to consider that the Domain Name could be used to deceive Internet users. ...
2022-03-18 - Case Details
Respondent is Borso hoev, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Spaceship, 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”).
...
2024-11-21 - Case Details
The Respondent is walteru walterur / asdasd, United States of America (“United States”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...The Domain Name incorporates the T-MOBILE Mark in its entirety with the minor addition “ip”. The addition of the abbreviation ‘ip” to a complainant’s mark does not prevent the confusing similarity, see Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2021-06-25 - Case Details
The Respondent is John Green, Russian Federation.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Eranet International Limited (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”).
...
2022-05-18 - Case Details
The Respondent is James Adams, United States of America (“United States”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name as revealed by the WhoIs details for
the disputed domain name, and is not authorised by the Complainant.
...
2024-10-16 - Case Details
The Respondent is Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Venom Focuz, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s G4S
mark as the G4S mark is fully incorporated and recognizable within the disputed domain name.
...
2022-08-19 - 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”).
...What the Complainant must prove under the Policy - General
Under Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant has the burden of proving the following:
(i) That the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) That the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) That the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2012-11-14 - 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 Domain Name resolves to a commercial website that features images of the Complainant’s LEGO toys and products. ...
2021-04-13 - 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”).
...The distinctive part of this Domain Name is the first element, namely ‘mul-t-lock' and the addition of the descriptive term ‘dealer' does not prevent the Domain Name from being confusingly similar to the mark...
2010-07-15 - 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
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”).
...See B & H Foto &
Electronics Corp. v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. / Joseph Gross, WIPO Case No. D2010-0842. The threshold
for satisfying this first element is low and generally panels have found that fully incorporating the identical
mark in a disputed domain name is sufficient to meet the standard of the first element.
...
2023-12-11 - Case Details
The Respondent is Joshua Herald of Columbus, Ohio, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the "Registrar").
3. ...Complainant
Complainant alleges that it owns rights in the service marks WBNS-TV, WBNS-10TV, and related combination service marks (denominated by Complainant as the "WBNS Marks") established through long use in commerce in the United States, and as evidenced by registration at the USPTO.
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its service marks.
Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because: (1) Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name; (2) Respondent has not been authorized by Complainant to use the WBNS Marks; (3) Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offer of goods or services; (4) Respondent has not made a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name because use of the disputed domain name to post a false news story does not constitute fair or legitimate use, citing to Scarlett Johansson v. ...
2016-06-08 - 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”).
...Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to divest the Respondent of the disputed domain name, the Complainant must demonstrate each of the following:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant 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.
...
2022-01-14 - Case Details
Respondent is Michael Scribner, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Complainant apparently complained to the Registrar of the disputed domain name
regarding the disputed domain name and thereafter the disputed domain name did not, and currently does
not, resolve to an active website or page.
5. ...
2025-02-07 - Case Details
The Respondent is Raffaella Damore, Afghanistan and France0 F
1.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain names and (the
“Disputed Domain Names”) are registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...After 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.
...
2024-02-28 - Case Details
See,
e.g., Blu Dot Design & Manufacturing, Inc. v. FangShuidi, WIPO Case No. D2023-4128 (“Comparing the
prices on the website at the disputed domain name (the full price and the discounted price for the same
product),[…] it is reasonable to conclude that those offered on the website at the disputed domain name
are counterfeit products. As a result, the Panel finds on balance of probabilities that the website to
which the disputed domain name resolves offers counterfeits of the Complainant’s products”); and
Frankie Shop LLC v. Marquita Couture, and Maria Valencia, WIPO Case No. ...
2026-06-15 - Case Details
It is incumbent on the Complainant to show:
i) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the it holds rights;
ii) that the Respondent has no legitimate rights or interests in the Domain Name; and
iii) that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith.
...Section 8 of the Registrar’s service agreement holds that any registrant of a domain name through the Registrar agrees to be bound by the Registrar’s current domain name dispute policy, in the case at hand the ICANN Policy. ...
2000-10-26 - Case Details