The Respondent is Host Master, Transure Enterprise Ltd, United States (“Respondent”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Above.com, Inc. ...Scott Donahey
Sole Panelist
Date: March 25, 2022
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Blackbaud, Inc. v. Host Master, Transure Enterprise Ltd
Case No. D2022-0530
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. ...
2022-05-05 - Case Details
The Respondent is Oneandone Private Registration of Chesterbrook, Pennsylvania, United States of America (“United States”) / Mike Burton of Los Angeles, California, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with 1&1 Internet AG (the “Registrar”).
3. ...It has not been authorized by the Complainant to register or use the Domain Name or to seek the registration of any domain name incorporating the VR|46 Mark or a mark similar to the VR|46 Mark. ...
2017-05-29 - Case Details
The Respondent is Magnum Domains, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The disputed domain name was registered on July 20, 2010.
The evidence provided by the Complainant indicates that, at the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed
domain name resolved to a page offering to sell the disputed domain name. ...
2025-03-31 - Case Details
The Respondent is Bob Phua, Cambodia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (“Domain Name”) is registered with
GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Complainant
The Complainant makes the following contentions:
(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s AMERICAN AIRLINES Mark;
(ii) the Respondent has no rights nor any legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2022-03-04 - 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
See, for example, Chanel, Inc. v. Estco Technology Group,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0413.
Previous panels have expressed the opinion that a domain name that consists of a trade mark plus a geographic term is confusingly similar to the trade mark. ...An abbreviation of a registered trade mark incorporated into a domain name may be confusingly similar to the trade mark (see, for example, Dow Jones & Company, Inc. & Dow Jones LP v. ...
2010-01-26 - Case Details
The Respondent is Lloyd Group, United Kingdom.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The only differences between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s name come from the reversal of the last letters “x” and “o” and the addition of the letter “s” in the Domain Name. ...
2021-06-09 - Case Details
The Respondent is Discount Heating, of Plymouth, Devon, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the "Domain Name") is registered with Tucows Inc.
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").
...
2003-07-30 - Case Details
The Respondent is swarovskishop.co swarovskishop.co of Venice, Italy.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).
3. ...There are two reasons for this. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name as its company name or trade name cannot create a defense under paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy where the domain name was registered in bad faith. ...
2013-10-01 - 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 Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's WHITE RIBBON Trade Marks.
(b) The Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, nor any name corresponding to it. ...Either way, the Panel finds that it is irrelevant that users may subsequently realize that the Disputed Domain Name is not associated with the Complainant once they land on the Respondent's website. As stated in Paris Hilton v. ...
2016-09-14 - Case Details
The Respondent is Julian Besprozvanny, Tallin, Tartumsa, Estonia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with EstDomains,
Inc.
3. ...The addition of the generic words “online” and “shop” does not remove the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the trademark in question.
As the Panel in Deutsche Telekom AG v. Timmy
Comeau, WIPO Case No. ...
2006-05-25 - Case Details
The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Name.com, Inc. ...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. ...
2019-06-24 - Case Details
The Respondent is Super Privacy Service c/o Dynadot of San Mateo, California, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The addition of the term “it” is not sufficient to distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from the Trade Mark as “wetransfer” remains the dominant part of the Disputed Domain Name.
...
2017-10-25 - Case Details
The Respondent is Name Redacted.1
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...It is also clear that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name or a corresponding name and that it is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name.
...
2019-01-14 - Case Details
Thus, it is not surprising that in BMW AG v. Loophole,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1156, the panel rejected such an argument in remarks that seem applicable to the present case:
“The Respondent has failed to produce evidence of any legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. ...Nor did such an argument avail the respondent in FIFA v. Andy Muffy,
WIPO Case No. DTV2001-0031, in seeking to retain the domain name , to contend that his business was “commonly known as “Forrestry Information Forum of Australia”.
...
2008-01-18 - Case Details
Names 1 of Ramdaspeth, Maharashtra, India.
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” 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”).
...
2010-06-29 - 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”).
...Accordingly, the Respondent cannot claim any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name is offered for sale for the amount of USD 800. This means that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, to realize a profit by offering it for sale immediately after its registration on July 8, 2012. ...
2012-10-31 - Case Details
The Respondent is Ethan Harper, United States of America (“United States”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Spaceship, 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”).
...
2025-07-07 - 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”).
...UDRP panels have declined to find “fair-use” or bona fide use when the trademark per se has been used in the disputed domain name by a respondent for commentary (considering the nature of the disputed domain name). See Puravankara Projects Limited v. ...
2018-12-07 - Case Details