The Respondent is Marc Lester Kasilag, sssgame, Philippines.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with
NameCheap, Inc. ...Factual Background
The Complainant, 6805183 Canada, Inc., operates the domain name , and appears to
use its domain name in connection with the provision of reviews of adult content.
...
2024-11-15 - Case Details
Respondent is WhoIsGuard Protected, Panama / Bitco Hub, India, self-represented.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...See Ebel International Limited v. Alan Brashear,
WIPO Case No. D2017-0001.
This point is further confirmed by Respondent’s use of the Domain Name. ...
2021-04-26 - Case Details
The Respondent is li shi min, li shi min, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Hello Internet Corp (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
As stated in many decisions rendered under the Policy (e.g., Robert Ellenbogen v. Mike Pearson, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0001) both conditions, registration and use in bad faith, must be demonstrated;
consequently, the Complainant must show that:
- the disputed domain name is registered by the Respondent in bad faith, and
- the disputed domain name is being used by the Respondent in bad faith.
...
2025-10-17 - Case Details
The Respondent is Bryan Olson, Canada.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Furthermore, noting the use of the disputed domain name in connection with what appears to be a fraudulent
email scheme, and the composition of the disputed domain name, the disputed domain name carries a high
risk of the Respondent being assumed to have an implied affiliation with the Complainant. ...
2023-02-22 - Case Details
The Center
verified that the complaint satisfied the formal requirement of the ICANN Uniform
Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Policy), the Rules for Uniform Domain
Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Rules), and the Supplemental Rules for Uniform
Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Supplemental Rules). ...There is no evidence of any actual commercial use of the Domain Name. Respondent
states that the site is "under construction." A recent reference to the Domain
Name yielded a page with Respondent Watson's email address and statements that
Complainant was contesting Respondent's right to the Domain Name [3].
...
2001-09-28 - Case Details
The Domain Name(s) and Registrar(s)
The domain name at issue is "planexpress.com", which domain name is registered with Network Solutions, Inc., based in Herndon, Virginia.
3. ...See, e.g., mPower Communications Corp. v. Park Lodge Hotel, WIPO Case No. D2000 0078.
6.11 Because the Panel has determined that Respondent has a right or legitimate in respect of the domain name at issue, Complainant has failed to carry his burden of proof on this issue. ...
2000-07-20 - Case Details
Respondent is David Czinczenheim, France.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Network Solutions, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Respondent, according to the disclosed WhoIs information for the disputed domain name, is a resident of
France who registered the disputed domain name on April 23, 2022, which is being offered on the Internet
through the domain name trading platform “www.dan.com” for online sale at varying prices, e.g. ...
2022-12-21 - Case Details
The Respondent is Power Click, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Panel finds the marks are recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed
domain name is confusingly similar to the marks for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2024-01-30 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Domain Admin/Whois protection, this company does not own this domain name s.r.o. / Hulmiho Ukolen, Poste restante
Case No. ...The disputed domain name is also a typical domain name that the relevant purchasing public would effect for trademark owners to provide information about their products.
...
2017-02-23 - Case Details
The Respondent is Kirk Rovinsky, Bain & Co., United States of America (“United States”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Furthermore, the Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the disputed domain name.
It has also been shown that the Respondent is not making any direct use of the disputed domain name,
noting the disputed domain name resolved to the Complainant’s website. ...
2024-12-27 - Case Details
The Respondent is Host Master, Njalla Okta LLC, Saint Kitts and Nevis.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Tucows Inc. ...Regarding the absence of the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests, the Complainant argues that:
i. the Respondent has no prior rights or legitimate interests in the CARREFOUR or CARREFOUR PASS
trademarks;
ii. the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name;
iii. the Respondent was not authorized by the Complainant to use or register its trademarks as a domain
name or in any manner or form;
iv. the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of
page 3
goods or services given that the disputed domain name resolves to an error page; and
v. ...
2025-02-27 - Case Details
Respondent is TechBlox Hostmaster, TechBlox, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with CloudFlare, Inc.
...Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the
Domain Name:
(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which
Complainant has rights; and
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2024-07-01 - 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”).
...While panel assessment remains fact-specific, generally speaking such
circumstances, alone or together, include: (i) the respondent’s likely knowledge of the complainant’s rights,
(ii) the distinctiveness of the complainant’s mark, (iii) a pattern of abusive registrations by the respondent, …
(v) threats to point or actually pointing the domain name to trademark-abusive content, … (vii) failure of a
respondent to present a credible evidence-backed rationale for registering the domain name, … Particularly
where the domain name at issue is identical or confusingly similar to a highly distinctive or famous mark,
panels have tended to view with a degree of skepticism a respondent defense that the domain name was
merely registered for legitimate speculation (based for example on any claimed dictionary meaning) as
opposed to targeting a specific brand owner.” ...
2022-11-09 - Case Details
The Respondent is Private Whois buyvaliumg.com of Nassau, Bahamas.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Internet.bs Corp.
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”).
...
2012-05-15 - Case Details
The Respondent is Alessandro Ceci of Rome, Italy.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Tucows Inc. (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Complainant has never authorized the Respondent to register a domain name reproducing the name Lidl. The Respondent does not make a fair use of the disputed domain name. ...
2019-05-06 - Case Details
The Respondent is Privacy Service provided by Withheld for Privacy EHF, Iceland / Jessica Williams, United
States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap,
Inc. ...This redirection of the Domain Name to the Complainant’s domain name without the
Complainant’s authorization must be considered as bad faith use. ...
2022-07-06 - Case Details
The Respondent is LA-Twilight-Zone, with an address in Bakersfield, California, USA.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is "TWILIGHT-ZONE.NET".
The registrar of the disputed domain name is Network Solutions, Inc., with business address in Herndon, Virginia, USA.
3. ...That is to say, it is possible, in certain circumstances, for inactivity by the Respondent to amount to the domain name being used in bad faith."
Telstra Corp. Ltd. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, Case No. ...
2000-06-21 - 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").
...D2016-2433 (finding no rights or legitimate interests in a confusingly similar domain name linked "to sites offering competing products").
Complainant has established the second element required under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2017-05-26 - Case Details
The Respondent is VistaPrint Technologies Ltd of Hamilton, Bermuda, Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Tucows Inc. (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”).
...
2017-08-24 - Case Details
The Center verified that 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”).
...In Exario Network Inc. v. THE DOMAIN NAME YOU HAVE ENTERED IS FOR SALE, eResolution Case No. AF-0536, the panel recognized: “It is well established that a complainant need not own a registered trademark to invoke the policy. ...
2014-07-02 - Case Details