The Respondent is Silicon Media, India, internally represented.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with
NameCheap, Inc. ...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. ...
2024-09-13 - Case Details
The Respondent is Ingenio Puga, Mexico.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...That domain name is the subject of a separate proceeding, ArcelorMittal (Société Anonyme) v. Florentino Lara,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-04-20 - Case Details
Respondent is Adminstrator of the Day, Pythagoras FZE, United Arab Emirates.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Communigal Communications Ltd. ...The disputed domain name incorporates the IBM trademark in its entirety. Numerous UDRP panels have recognized that incorporating a trademark in its entirety can be sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name is at least confusingly similar to a registered trademark (see e.g., PepsiCo, Inc. v. ...
2020-09-11 - Case Details
The Respondent is Local Services ICN, Sheung Wan, Hong Kong, SAR of China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Fabulous.com.
3. ...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").
...
2004-04-23 - Case Details
Doumanian, Esq., United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is
registered with eNom (the “Registrar”).
3. ...b) the Respondent has not been commonly known by the Domain Name or any variation of it.
c) the Respondent has shown no demonstrable use or preparation of use of the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
3. ...
2006-03-29 - 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”).
...Under the Policy, the Complainant must prove that
(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which it has rights; and
(ii) the 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.
...
2007-05-29 - Case Details
On May 12, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 15, 2017, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming:
(a) it is the Registrar for the disputed domain name;
(b) the disputed domain name is registered in the name of the Respondent and the contact details are correct;
(c) the disputed domain name has been registered in the name of the Respondent since at least April 16, 2017;
(d) the language of the registration agreement is English;
(e) the disputed domain name was registered subject to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), and the UDRP applies to the disputed domain name.
...The Complainant states that it has not authorized the Respondent to use the disputed domain name. Nor is the Respondent affiliated with it. The disputed domain name is plainly not derived from the Respondent’s name. ...
2017-06-30 - 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”).
...On November 19, 2008, Respondent replied by a telephone call to Complainant's counsel, disputing Complainant's right to the domain name at issue. Complaint, p. 5.
5. Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
Complainant contends that the domain name at issue is identical or confusingly similar to the mark VIRTUAL SEX, in which Complainant has rights, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name at issue, and that the domain name at issue was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2009-03-24 - Case Details
The Respondent is Whois Agent of Kirkland, Washington, US / ICS INC. of Grand Cayman, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“UK”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with eNom (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Finally, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name was registered and used by the Respondent in bad faith.
The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to it.
...
2014-09-09 - Case Details
Respondent is Jessica Nelson, Geico, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Squarespace Domains II 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. ...
2024-01-23 - Case Details
The Respondent is Host Master, Transure Enterprise Ltd, United States of America (“United States”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Above.com, PTY LTD. ...Consequently, the Respondent holds no
legitimate and/or bona fide interest in the use of the disputed domain name, and it is evident that the
Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, but instead,
aims at commercial gain by using the disputed domain name in a PPC campaign.
...
2023-09-12 - 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”).
...Such use of the disputed domain name could not be said to be bona fide.
In the oft-quoted case of Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. ...
2016-05-23 - Case Details
The Respondent is 1&1 Internet Limited of Gloucester, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with 1&1 Internet AG (the “Registrar”).
3. ...See, e.g., Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
In the present case, the Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. ...
2017-04-13 - Case Details
The Respondent is Evrard Therriault, France.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a
Registrar.eu. ...Lundbeck A/S v. Evrard Therriault
Case No. D2024-1305
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2024-05-23 - Case Details
Respondent is Mike Powells, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Complainant
Complainant contends that (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’
trademarks, (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and (iii)
Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...
2025-11-20 - 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”).
...As shown above, the Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. As for (ii) above, the Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. ...
2005-10-27 - Case Details
The Respondent is Brown Criuse, PRIMA INDO TUNA, Nigeria.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...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”).
...
2025-09-24 - Case Details
Respondent is Sunil Khatri, United States.
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 identical to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2025-10-29 - Case Details
The Respondent is Ms. Loredana Salvatori, Rome, Italy.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Direct Information
Pvt Limited d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
3. ...In particular, the Panel is supported by the earlier
decision in Six Continental Hotels v. Seweryn Nowak (WIPO
Case No. D2003-0022) where the panel found that “the diversion of
the domain names to a pornographic site is itself certainly consistent with
the finding that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith”.
...
2007-04-02 - Case Details
Also the disputed domain name includes the English word "account".
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark, because it incorporates the APPLE trademark in its entirety. ...The Respondent is neither using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
...
2015-05-26 - Case Details