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”).
...D2000-0102, regarding the domain name , in which the addition of the noun “girls” was not sufficient to distinguish the domain name from the trademark NOKIA. ...
2014-01-13 - Case Details
Customer 0161311979, Canada / Name Redacted1 .
2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names , , and are registered with Tucows Inc.
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”).
...
2022-02-23 - Case Details
The Respondent is Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, Panama.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (“Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC
(the “Registrar”).
3. ...As for the use of the Domain Name, based on the evidence submitted the Respondent is using it in order to
obtain click-through-revenue from the pay-per-click parking site and such circumstance is a clear indication
of bad faith (see, among others, Iflscience Limited v. ...
2024-01-02 - Case Details
The Respondent is PATRICK COHEN, COHEN PATRICK, France.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Tucows Inc. (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. ...
2025-01-30 - Case Details
The Respondent is Carla Mitchell, Lima, UK.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with 123-Reg Limited (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 Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.
/Ian Lowe/
Ian Lowe
Sole Panelist
Date: April 1, 2025
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
LYMA Life Limited v. ...
2025-04-04 - Case Details
The Respondent is Domain Administrator, Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, Panama.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Media Elite Holdings Limited (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”).
...
2025-03-12 - Case Details
page 2
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”).
...As to the disputed domain name which directs to a
blank page, the Panel notes that the non-use of this disputed domain name also does not confer rights or
legitimate interests on the Respondent under the circumstances of this case.
...
2025-06-24 - Case Details
Dean Benigno d/b/a Realty Executives in Scottsdale, Arizona, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name in dispute is . The registrar for the disputed domain name is Network Solutions, Inc.
3. ...Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Respondent’s business name, Realty Executives, is very different from the domain name, whereas Complainant’s business name and pending service mark are identical to the domain name. ...
2003-10-23 - Case Details
The Respondent is Michael Ezike, Nigeria.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its widely known
trademarks; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and,
that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. ...
2023-06-29 - Case Details
The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The addition of the final letter “a” in the disputed domain name does not prevent the
Complainant’s trademark from being recognizable within the disputed domain name and the phonetic
pronunciation of the disputed domain name remains the same as Complainant’s mark. ...
2022-04-13 - Case Details
The Respondent is R. I., Switzerland.
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”).
...
2023-09-21 - Case Details
The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp (the "Registrar").
3. ...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").
...
2016-04-22 - Case Details
Respondent is Sator Ltd. of Saint-Petersburg, Russian Federation.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with DomainPeople, Inc.
3. ...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”).
...
2010-06-30 - Case Details
The Respondent is Theparagoncatalog.Com c/o Whois Identity Shield, Vancouver,
British Columbia, Canada.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Nameview
Inc..
3. ...Rights or Legitimate Interests
As has been noted previously, once a complainant makes a prima facie
case the burden shifts to the respondent to establish rights or legitimate interests
in the disputed domain name; see WIPO Case
No D2000-0624, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, (finding that once
the complainant asserts that the respondent does not have rights or legitimate
interests with respect to the domain, the burden shifts to the respondent to
provide credible evidence that substantiates its claim of rights and legitimate
interests in the domain name). ...
2006-09-15 - Case Details
However, as discussed below, Moniker Privacy Services appears to be merely a Privacy Service Provider.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Moniker Online Services, LLC.
3. ...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”), 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”).
...
2007-07-20 - Case Details
The Respondent is Brennie Brackett, Brackett Brennie, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (“the Domain Name”) is registered with Register.com (the
“Registrar”).
3. ...The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the Domain Name. The Domain Name merely removes the
“i” and adds an “s” to the FENWICK mark (“fenwcks”). ...
2024-10-08 - 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, distributors or resellers can be making a bona fide offering of goods
and thus have a right or legitimate interest in a domain name only if the following cumulative requirements
are met (Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. ...
2023-09-21 - Case Details
The Respondent is RAVI Gupta, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. .../Gareth Dickson/
Gareth Dickson
Sole Panelist
Date: December 20, 2022
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
VENTE-PRIVEE.COM v. RAVI Gupta
Case No. D2022-4079
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2023-01-02 - Case Details
The Respondent is Forrest Bailey, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Sav.com, LLC - 6 (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Additionally, the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name and the Respondent is not making
a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
...
2023-07-06 - Case Details
The disputed
domain name subsumes the whole of the CHANNELADVISOR mark adding only the number “6”. The
addition of the number “6” does nothing to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s
mark.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The
Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name has no connection with a bona fide offering of goods or
services. ...
2022-07-22 - Case Details