The Respondent is Mr. David Black of Sliema, Malta.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with 1&1 Internet AG.
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”).
...
2011-07-11 - Case Details
The Respondent is Tivon Marcus, United States of America (“United States”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Google LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...- The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The disputed domain name is highly similar to the CACEIS trademark. ...
2020-04-17 - Case Details
The Respondent is Whois Privacy Protection Service by onamae.com, Japan / Tran Xuan Quy, Viet Nam.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GMO Internet, Inc. d/b/a Discount-Domain.com and Onamae.com (the “Registrar”).
3. ...It further claims the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It argues that the use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent is in bad faith and, therefore, requests the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant accordingly.
...
2019-08-28 - Case Details
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfies the formal requirements of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy [the Policy], the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy [the Rules], and the Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy [the Supplemental Rules]. ...Discussion and Findings
6.1 Under paragraph 4a of the Policy, the Complainant must prove three distinct elements in order to succeed with a claim for transfer of a domain name, namely;
- that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
- that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
- that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith
6.2 Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.2.1. ...
2000-11-20 - Case Details
The Respondent is JT2M, Tarbes, France.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Network Solutions,
LLC.
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”).
...
2006-10-23 - Case Details
Respondent is Domain Administrator 2@2220.com of Hong Kong, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (“Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Moniker Online Services, LLC.
3. ...The Panel finds that the difference pointed above is not enough to characterize the Disputed Domain Name as being distinct from Complainant’s registered IKEA trademark. See Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. ...
2012-01-05 - Case Details
The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. ...In this proceeding, Apple, Inc. is not a party and there is no evidence in the case before the Panel that Apple, Inc. would consent to the remedy of transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant, see Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Automotive Parts Solutions,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-10-08 - Case Details
The Respondent is GE Pharma Ltd of Luton, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Such use does not amount to or grant the Respondent rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Domain Name resolves to a website that appears to advertise goods and services for a commercial purpose. ...
2014-02-11 - Case Details
Krachtus, motiondrive AG of Neustadt an der Waldnaab, Germany, represented by Bettinger Schneider Schramm Patent-und Rechtsanwälte, Germany.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the "Domain Name") is registered with PSI-USA, Inc. dba Domain Robot (the "Registrar").
3. ...The name of the Domain Name registrant changed a number of times from February 2012 until September 2012, when the Domain Name was registered with another registrar under a "privacy registration service."
...
2015-01-26 - Case Details
The Respondent is Nano Techan, Nigeria.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...Complainant
The Complainant contends that save the applicable Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) in the disputed domain name,
in this case “.shop”, the disputed domain name is identical to its CORALINE trademark.
...
2023-02-02 - Case Details
The Respondent is 杨智超 (Zhichao Yang), China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (“Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with
Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) (the “Registrar”).
3. ...case=D2020-0863
page 3
to use, the Disputed Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name, in connection
with the bona fide offering of goods or services. ...
2022-05-11 - Case Details
The Respondent is Aamir Ali, Pakistan.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...This
test typically involves a side-by-side comparison of the domain name and the textual components of the
relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the domain name.
...
2023-04-13 - Case Details
The Respondent is InUdayipu CredMathram of Mumbai, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the "Registrar").
3. ...See Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp.,
WIPO Case No. D2017-1985, where it was found that combining the trademark with the word "ticket" did not prevent finding confusing similarity of the domain name with the mark. ...
2018-08-30 - Case Details
The Domain Name and Registrar
The Disputed Domain Name is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The addition of the prefix “www” to a trademark has been recognized as a form of typosquatting, such typosquatting by itself constitutes a clear demonstration of bad faith registration and use of a domain name. (See for instance Joanne Rowling v. Alvaro Collazo,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0787). Moreover, it is important to mention that the Complainant owns the domain name which was created on February 1, 2016. ...
2018-11-30 - Case Details
The Respondent is WAQAS SHOUKAT, Pakistan.
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 is not making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, nor is it
using the disputed domain name for bona fide offering of goods or services. The disputed domain name
directs to a website indicating that it is down for maintenance. ...
2025-02-18 - Case Details
The Respondent is Chris Morris, CT Tech, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...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”).
...
2025-02-18 - Case Details
The Respondent is Bui Xuan Thanh, Viet Nam.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. .../Andrea Mondini/
Andrea Mondini
Sole Panelist
Date: October 7, 2025
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Midjourney Inc. v. Bui Xuan Thanh
Case No. DIO2025-0027
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2025-10-09 - Case Details
The Respondent is Yixian Wen, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Alibaba.com Singapore E-Commerce Private Limited (the “Registrar”).
3. ...In the case at hand, in view of the prior registration and use of the trademark FAT FACE by the Complainant and of the well-known character of the trademark, also recognized in the prior UDRP decision Fat Face Holdings Ltd v. Belize Domain WHOIS Service Lt,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0626, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name, which differs from the Complainant’s trademark FAT FACE and its domain name by the addition of one single letter “d”, cannot amount to a mere coincidence and that, in all likelihood, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s trademark in mind.
...
2021-08-04 - 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").
...Under the ICANN-mandated standard terms of domain name registration agreements, domain name owners remain responsible for ensuring that their domain names are not used in a manner that infringes the rights of others. ...
2017-12-11 - Case Details
The Respondent is Spiral Matrix, Eldoret, Kenya.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed Domain Name is registered with Intercosmos
Media Group d/b/a directNIC.com.
3. ...However, it is well established
that once a complainant demonstrates a prima facie case on respondent’s
lack of rights or legitimate interests to a domain name, the burden of proof
is shifted to the respondent. See, Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire
Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. ...
2006-05-15 - Case Details