The Respondent is Thomas Muller, Citrix Systems UK Ltd., United Kingdom.
2. The Domain Name, Registry and Registrar
The Registry of the disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is the European Registry for Internet Domains (“EURid” or the “Registry”). ...If the Respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. See Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG v. Name Redacted,
WIPO Case No. DEU2018-0012.
Based on the evidence and the undisputed submissions of the Complainant, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has not received the Complainant’s consent to register or use the Trade Marks as part of the Domain Name, is not commonly known by the Domain Name, and has not acquired trade mark rights in the Domain Name. ...
2019-09-10 - Case Details
The Center verified that the Complaint and the amendment to Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of
the .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “irDRP”), the Rules for .ir Domain Name
Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .ir Domain Name Dispute
Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
.../Ian Lowe/
Ian Lowe
Sole Panelist
Date: May 23, 2024
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Migros-Genossenschafts-Bund, Migros Ticaret A.Ş. v. Safar Adibpour
Case No. DIR2024-0006
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2024-05-30 - Case Details
The Respondent is Wang Xin of xi an, shanxi, the People’s Republic of China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The Disputed Domain Name is registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.
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”).
...
2011-07-19 - Case Details
page 2
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”).
...The Complainant requests the consolidation of the disputes against the multiple
disputed domain name registrants pursuant to paragraph 10(e) of the Rules.
The disputed domain name registrants did not comment on the Complainant’s request.
...
2025-09-25 - 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”), 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 the case of at least three of the Domain Names, therefore, the Panel finds circumstances indicating that the Respondent registered the Domain Names with a view to selling or otherwise transferring the domain name registrations for sums in excess of out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name.
...
2005-09-20 - Case Details
The Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc., Panama / Ross Gray, Australia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The Disputed Domain Name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...In addition, the Complainant’s ZELLE trademark is well known as it has been recognized by previous decisions under the Policy (Early Warning Services, LLC v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1242726540 / Andy Bang, Amer Group Inc,
WIPO Case No. D2020-2572). This clearly shows that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registering the Disputed Domain Name and it proceeded with the registration of the Disputed Domain Name.
...
2021-04-19 - Case Details
The Respondent is huy tran, Viet Nam.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds that
the Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith. In
accordance with the principles established in Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2025-12-02 - Case Details
The Respondent is Tiana Smith of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Crazy Domains Pty Ltd.
3. ...Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has clearly demonstrated and substantiated its rights in the name and trademark BUDGET DIRECT. The disputed domain name wholly contains that name and trademark. The addition to it of the word “insurance”, which describes the Complainant’s industry does not distinguish the disputed domain name but rather, adds to the likelihood of confusion (see for example Fondation Le Corbusier v. ...
2012-07-10 - 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”).
...The disputed domain names have been pointed to webpages displaying only an inaccessible “cgi-bin” folder.
It is well established that passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under
certain circumstances as decided, i.a., in Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2023-04-18 - 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”).
...In cases where a domain
name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly
similar to that mark (see section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).
...
2023-08-08 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have found that the mere addition of a term to a trademark in a domain name does
not avoid a finding of confusing similarity. This has been held in many UDRP cases (see, e.g., The British
Broadcasting Corporation v. ...Dolphin@Heart, WIPO Case No. D2000-0713; AltaVista
Company v. S. M. A., Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0927).
It is also already well established that the addition of a gTLD such as “.com” is typically irrelevant when
determining whether a domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark.
...
2022-06-29 - Case Details
The Respondent is Florence Albertini, Souvlego, France.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. ...The disputed domain name was registered on September 23, 2025. The Panel notes that
the disputed domain name is currently inactive, displaying a “[t]his site can’t be reached” message upon
attempted access. ...
2025-12-23 - Case Details
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”).
...Such as Valero Energy Corporation and Valero Marketing and Supply Company v.
Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org) / Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2019-1708;
and Valero Energy Corporation and Valero Marketing and Supply Company v. ...
2025-06-13 - Case Details
The Respondent is Arash Ansari, Netherlands (Kingdom of the).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Sav.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Instagram, LLC v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Masud Rana, D-limit Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2022-0250.
While the disputed domain name was initially registered in 2003, the Respondent acquired it apparently in
2021. ...
2024-08-05 - Case Details
The Respondent is Yoichi Koyachi of Zamashi, Kanagawa, Japan.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, 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").
...
2014-10-17 - Case Details
Respondent is Ma Shikai, bao ding, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Beijing Innovative Linkage Technology Ltd. dba dns.com.cn.
3. ...Previous UDRP panel decisions have held that the fact Respondent has used incomplete contact information indicating an obviously non-existing fax number when registering the domain name is further evidence of bad faith. See CC Computer Consultants GmbH and WAFA Kunststoffechnik GmbH v. ...
2008-05-20 - Case Details
The Respondent is Kavala Osman, Diyabekir, United Kingdom (“UK”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...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. ...
2025-12-30 - Case Details
The Respondent is Anas Frejat, Austria.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameSilo, 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. ...
2024-05-03 - Case Details
Complainant
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s THIELE trademark.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. ...The only additional element in the disputed domain name is the gTLD “.com”. As a standard requirement of
domain name registration, this element may be disregarded in the comparison between a domain name and
a trademark, unless it has some impact beyond its technical function, which is not the case here. ...
2023-07-05 - 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”).
...The Complainant’s highly distinctive marks TUI are wholly included in the disputed domain names. According to the Complainant, the test of confusing similarity under the Policy is confined to a comparison of the disputed domain name and the trademark alone, independent on the products for which the domain name is used or other marketing and use factors. ...
2007-12-14 - Case Details