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 Panel does not consider it to be significant that the Respondent had not yet used the disputed domain name for the purpose of any active website. The Respondent’s intentions in this regard were clear and the passive holding of a domain name does not preclude a finding of bad faith when the overall circumstances of the case point to that conclusion (Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2016-12-07 - Case Details
Ltd., a corporation of Japan, with its principal place of business at 4-7, Doshomachi 3-chome, Chuo-ku, Osaka 541-8514, Japan.
1.2 The Respondent is Acaramba Inc., an entity having its address at 1 Soldiers Field, # 404, Boston, MA 02163 USA.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name in dispute is "suprax.com", which domain name is registered with Network Solutions Inc. based in Herndon, Virginia, United States of America.
3. ...Pursuant to such decision, the domain names were transferred to the Complainant’s licensee.
5. Parties’ Contentions
The Complainant’s contentions are as follows:
5.1 The domain name in issue is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark "SUPRAX" in which the Complainant has rights.
5.2 The domain name was registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant or its licensee for valuable consideration in excess of the domain name registrant’s out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name. ...
2000-09-13 - Case Details
The Respondent is duvid stern, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Hostinger Operations, UAB (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s BOSTIK prior trademarks, domain names and company name, the only difference between
the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name being the substitution of the letter “i” with the
letter “l” in the second syllable; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed
domain name; and, the fact that the typo squatting nature of the disputed domain name, combined with the
passive holding of the disputed domain name and the provision of false data when registering the disputed
domain name, show the Respondent’s bad faith in registering and using the disputed domain name.
...
2024-10-21 - Case Details
The Respondent is Compsys Domain Solutions Private Limited of Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
2. 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”).
...
2018-02-23 - 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”).
...b) Consolidation of Respondents
The amended Complaint was filed in relation to nominally different domain name registrants. The
Complainants request the consolidation of the Complaint against the multiple disputed domain name
registrants pursuant to paragraph 10(e) of the Rules. ...
2024-01-09 - Case Details
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 Complainant alleges that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The Complainant accordingly petitions the Panel to order transfer of the disputed domain name.
...The trade mark is the only distinctive part of the disputed domain name and the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark.
...
2016-11-16 - Case Details
The Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected / WhoisGuard Inc. of Panama, Onur Oztas of Adana, Turkey.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant's trademark in its entirety. As recognized in past decisions such as ELS Educational Services, Inc. v. ...
2017-10-10 - 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
Patent and Trademark Office). Neither can the inclusion of the top level domain designator ".com" in the domain name serve to distinguish that name from Complainant’s mark in any way. ...Respondent argues, in essence, that registration of a domain name is sufficient to establish rights or a legitimate interest in the domain name. The Presiding Panelist finds that registration of a domain name is not, by itself, sufficient to establish rights or a legitimate interest in the domain name. ...
2000-04-05 - 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 Erick Calder, United States of America (“United States”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Google LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Sixth St, San Pedro, CA 90731 acquired the
disputed domain name in January 2020 from a third party for USD 15,000.
The disputed domain name is, however, registered in the name of the Respondent.
...
2023-08-15 - 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 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 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 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