The Respondent is Faheem Lashari, Pakistan.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Dynadot Inc (the
“Registrar”).
3. ...The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the Domain Name. Accordingly, the Domain Name is
confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2024-09-18 - Case Details
The Respondent is Aykut Yilmaz, AY-SAT Otomotiv Nakliyat Gida ith. ihr. Ltd. Sti., Turkey.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...None of this is consistent with the Respondent having rights or legitimate interests as a genuine re-seller using the disputed domain name in terms of the “Okidata factors” set out in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-08-31 - Case Details
Respondent is Djuradj Caranovic, Serbia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with FastDomain, Inc. ...Respondent, according to the disclosed WhoIs information for the disputed domain name, is a resident of the Republic of Serbia who registered the disputed domain name on April 5, 2021. ...
2021-10-05 - Case Details
The Respondent is jonh david, Viet Nam.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Porkbun LLC (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. ...
2026-02-17 - Case Details
The respondent is Cimagotipo S.L., a Spanish company based at Pallars 161, 08005 - Barcelona, Spain ("the Respondent").
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name at issue is ("the Domain Name").
The registrar of the Domain Name is Tucows.com, Inc. ...In Complainant's view the situation is similar to that in Telstra Ltd. v.
Nuclear Marshmallows Inc. (WIPO Case D2000-0003),
where the panel considered that passive holding of a domain name satisfies the
requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) that the domain name is being used in bad
faith by Respondent.
...
2001-08-10 - Case Details
The Respondent is Pencreach Jacques, France.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu. ...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”).
...
2021-06-28 - Case Details
In addition to that, the lack of any good faith use of the disputed domain which is being used in connection with PPC links available at the parked webpage that resolves from the disputed domain name, does not characterize an evidence of the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable 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.
...The registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith can be found in the present case in view of the following circumstances:
(i) the Respondent has provided no evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good faith use of the disputed domain name, not having submitted a response;
(ii) the Respondent has not replied to the cease-and-desist letter sent prior to this procedure;
(iii) the use of the disputed domain name in connection with a parked webpage displaying PPC links;
(iv) the Complainant’s trademarks have a date of first use in commerce that predates the registration of the disputed domain name; and
(v) the nature of the disputed domain name (reproducing the entirety of the Complainant’s trademark and misspelling the “optical” term), and the Respondent’s intention to unduly profit from the value of the Complainant’s trademark, suggest rather a clear indication of the Respondent’s registration and holding of the disputed domain name in bad faith, with the implausibility of any good faith use to which the disputed domain name may be put.
...
2021-12-21 - Case Details
The Respondent is not represented in these proceedings.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Key-Systems GmbH dba domaindiscount24.com.
3. ...The Domain Name incorporates the complete trademark, only adding the generic domain extension “.mobi”. Therefore, the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trademarks.
...
2008-05-28 - Case Details
The Respondent is Fred Bingo, Italy.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).
3. ...For such reasons, the Panel finds that the Respondent must have been fully aware of the Complainant’s trademarks and activities when it registered the disputed domain name. See, e.g., Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Vincent Battista,
WIPO Case No. D2018‑1416.
As regards the use of the disputed domain name, the fact that the website at which the disputed domain name resolves is inactive does not preclude a finding of bad faith, nor does it detract from the Respondent’s bad faith. ...
2021-07-29 - Case Details
The Respondent is Proxy Protection LLC, United States / Brenda Drake, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with
DreamHost, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Isenberg
Sole Panelist
Date: June 16, 2022
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
JJR Enterprises, LLC, Straight Arrow News, LLC v. Proxy Protection LLC / Brenda Drake
Case No. D2022-1506
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. ...
2022-06-29 - Case Details
The Respondent is Eusof Ali, HMEA World, Bangladesh.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Respondent has not responded and the Panel is unable to conceive of any basis upon which the Respondent could sensibly be said to have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. D2000‑0003).
The fact that the Respondent has indicated to the Center that it is “ready to transfer the domain any time” would seem to confirm that it has no rights nor legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy have been fulfilled.
...
2022-02-18 - Case Details
The Respondent is Rameez Ghayas Usmani, HAROHelpareporter, Pakistan.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar(s)
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...In this case, the Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Name creates a risk of implied affiliation
due to the composition of the Domain Name (which fully incorporates the Trademarks) and the content of the
website to which the Domain Name resolves. ...
2026-01-19 - 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”).
...According to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy the following circumstances, if proved, demonstrate a respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in a domain name:
(i) respondent used or demonstrably prepared to use the domain name or corresponding name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to notice of the dispute; or
(ii) respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if it has not acquired trademark rights; or
(iii) respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the complainant’s marks.
...
2011-08-15 - Case Details
The Respondent is Md Nurun Nabie, United Arab Emirates.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...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”).
...
2024-05-01 - Case Details
The Respondent is Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp., Bahamas / roberto vaccarella, Italy.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp (the
“Registrar”).
3. ...The Respondent does not appear to make any legitimate noncommercial or fair
use of the disputed domain name, nor any use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
In fact, the disputed domain name redirects to the website of a domain name broker where the disputed
domain name is offered for sale. ...
2022-07-26 - Case Details
The Respondent is Laurent Guerson, France.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a
Registrar.eu. ...As to the use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, as previously mentioned, at the time of filing of the
Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a parking page. ...
2022-05-13 - Case Details
Respondent is Benson and Partner Ltd of Houston, Texas, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with SIDN through webagentur.at internet services gmbh.
3. ...The website connected to the Domain Name is a pay per click site which according to Complainant further indicates the lack of legitimate interest of Respondent in the Domain Name. ...
2011-03-10 - 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”).
...A gTLD, in this case “.com”, may be ignored when assessing the confusing similarity between a trademark and a domain name since it is a technical registration requirement (see, e.g., VAT Holding AG v. Vat.com,
WIPO Case No. ...
2019-12-11 - Case Details
The Respondent is Gary Brooks, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NetEarth One Inc. d/b/a NetEarth (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. ...
2021-04-14 - Case Details
Group One Holdings Pte Ltd v. Steven Hafto
WIPO Case No. D2017-0183.
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.
...ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Paybook Inc v. Chr S., Lakerock
Case No. DAI2026-0015
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2026-04-08 - Case Details