The Respondent is sale sale, aiirbot of New York, New York, United States of America (the “United States”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).
3. ...However, such addition of textual letters does not prevent the AGFA trademark to be recognizable within the disputed domain name. As here, where a mark is the distinctive part of a disputed domain name, the disputed domain name is considered to be confusingly similar to the registered trademark.
...
2019-01-21 - Case Details
The Domain Name and Registrar
2.1 The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...There are no rights or legitimate interests in holding a domain name for the purpose of engaging in such fraudulent impersonation. Further, the registration and use of a domain name for such a purpose involves registration and use in bad faith (see, for example, Weber-Stephen Products LLC v. ...
2021-04-06 - Case Details
The Respondent is Jason Fertel, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, 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. ...
2026-06-09 - Case Details
The Respondent is Loka King, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with MainReg Inc. (the “Registrar”).
3. ...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. ...
2025-07-11 - Case Details
Respondent is Ron Soden, Partisan Records, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...Complainant uses its website and emails associated with the domain name
to communicate with customers online.
The disputed domain name was registered on March 31, 2025. ...
2025-07-08 - 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”).
...D2010-1110, have stated that the absence of use of a domain name is tantamount to use in bad faith, in that the domain name in question is being used in order to prevent the legitimate owner of the mark from registering it in a corresponding domain name.
...
2011-10-21 - 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”).
...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
According to paragraph
4(b) of the Policy, the following circumstances shall be evidence of the registration
and use of a domain name in bad faith:
“(i) circumstances
indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily
for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name
registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service
mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess
of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name;
or
(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the
trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain
name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting
the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract,
for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location,
by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to
the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location
or of a product or service on your web site or location.”
...
2005-04-14 - Case Details
The Respondent is CyberDeal, Inc. of New York, New York, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name , (the “Domain Name”), is registered with Network Solutions, LLC. ...The main thrust of the Complaint is that the Respondent’s non-use of the Domain Name is evidence of bad faith use.
Certainly, non-use may constitute evidence of bad faith in line with the much-cited authority Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2010-08-25 - Case Details
The Respondent is Ericka Moore, smagcorps, United States of America (“US”).
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. ...
2025-03-27 - Case Details
The Respondent is Extent Media, Extent Media, Türkiye.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Wix.com Ltd. ...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”).
...
2023-08-02 - Case Details
Respondent is Matarr Njjie, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Hostinger Operations, UAB (the
“Registrar”).
3. ...The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name, and the ADM mark is clearly
recognizable within the disputed domain name. The addition of the term “agrics” in the disputed domain
name does not negate a finding of confusing similarity. ...
2024-02-01 - Case Details
Respondent is Jay Athey, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...The Panel finds the SYNOPSYS Marks are recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the
disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the SYNOPSYS Marks for the purposes of the Policy.
...
2024-05-13 - Case Details
Respondent is Scah Collins, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...On March 25, 2024, Complainant reported the
disputed domain name to the Registrar for phishing. The disputed domain name also has an active Mail
Exchange (“MX”) record, indicating that Respondent may be using the disputed domain name to send
phishing emails.
5. ...
2024-05-23 - Case Details
The Respondent is google help, google us, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s trademark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed
domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2025-01-10 - Case Details
Respondent is Ahmad Shodiqin, Indonesia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with IONOS SE
(the “Registrar”).
3. ...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.
...
2024-09-26 - Case Details
The Respondent is Rohit Mehta, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Wix.com Ltd. ...See Citigroup, Inc., MasterCard International Incorporated v. Domain Proxies, LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0951 (“Panel finds that each of the trademarks CITI and MASTERCARD is so distinctive that use of the combination CITIMASTERCARD in the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to each of the Complainants’ trademarks”).
...
2019-11-06 - Case Details
The Respondent is Tbdsh Rvdsh, Hong Kong, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Name.com, 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”).
...
2023-04-03 - Case Details
The Respondent is james LeBron, United States of America (“United States”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Maier
Sole Panelist
Date: October 26, 2022
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Les Mills International Limited v. james LeBron
Case No. D2022-3246
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2022-10-31 - Case Details
The Respondent is Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Laurent PALLOMBA,
France.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel
orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
/Christophe Caron/
Christophe Caron
Sole Panelist
Date: July 11, 2022
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Natixis v. ...
2022-07-14 - Case Details
The Respondent is Host Master, Transure Enterprise Ltd, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Above.com, Inc. ...⁃ the Respondent's blank page is evidence that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain
name in bad faith without a genuine intention of using the disputed domain name for a proper purpose...
2025-09-04 - Case Details