Respondent is Steven Wheeler, promedlhs, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with PDR Ltd.
...The Panel finds that the nature of the Disputed Domain Name containing a typo of Complainant’s official
domain name , supports a finding of bad faith. ...
2024-10-17 - Case Details
The Respondent is monika wasanm, United States of America, and origin data, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain names (the “f irst disputed domain name”) and
(the “second disputed domain name”) are registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...The f irst disputed domain name does not resolve to any active website (“This site can’t be reached”). The
second disputed domain name resolves to the Registrar’s parking page indicating that this disputed domain
name has been suspended. ...
2023-11-30 - Case Details
The Respondent is maurice frisby, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Sav.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s company name and domain name
.
...
2024-12-30 - Case Details
The Respondent is Luis Tinajero, Mexico.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The
disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant became aware
of the disputed domain name in November 2023.
...
2024-09-27 - Case Details
Respondent is SUNNY PUNNI, S PUNNI GROUP, United Kingdom.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with FastDomain, Inc. ...In response to the demand letter, Respondent apparently rebranded and
began using the domain name . Respondent, however, retained the
disputed domain name. Currently the disputed domain name resolves to a “403 Forbidden” page.
5. ...
2025-05-19 - 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 Complainant further submits that the addition of a hyphen in the disputed domain name does nothing to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark. ...
2019-01-07 - 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”).
...case=D2025-3318
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 4
in a disputed domain name of an additional letter or typo, or other terms is still sufficient for a disputed
domain name to be confusingly similar to the relevant trademark for the purposes of the first element
(WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8 and 1.9).
...
2025-10-10 - Case Details
d) The Respondent has not made any use of the disputed domain name since acquisition from the original registrant. The Panel relies on Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. ...c) The Respondent has not made any use of the disputed domain name since acquisition from the original registrant. The Panel relies on Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. ...
2015-09-07 - Case Details
The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Respondent has not responded and the Panel is unable to conceive of any basis upon which the Respondent could sensibly be said to have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (Telstra Corporation Ltd. v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0003).
The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy have been fulfilled.
...
2022-03-02 - Case Details
Respondent is Daniel Lee, Hyun Enterprises, Inc., United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Register.com, 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”).
...
2023-02-06 - Case Details
Respondent is Mark Dijksman, Dijksman Holding of The Hague, Netherlands.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...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. PEPSI, SRL (a/k/a P.E.P.S.I.) and EMS Computer Industry (a/k/a EMS),
WIPO Case No. ...
2018-06-22 - Case Details
The Respondent is no reply, equifax, Australia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with
Squarespace Domains II LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The entirety of the EQUIFAX trademark is reproduced within the Disputed Domain Name. The Panel finds
that the EQUIFAX trademark is recognizable within the Disputed Domain Name. ...
2025-11-07 - Case Details
The Domain Name registrants did not comment on the Complainants’ request for consolidation.
Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules states that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that
the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.
...As numerous
UDRP panels have held, incorporating a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a domain name
is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark (see PepsiCo, Inc. v. PEPSI, SRL (a/k/a P.E.P.S.I.) and
EMS COMPUTER INDUSTRY (a/k/a EMS), WIPO Case No. ...
2024-11-14 - 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”).
...Rights or Legitimate Interests
Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Complainants must prove that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. However, many prior UDRP panels have established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name the burden of production shifts to the respondent to demonstrate that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, in the absence of which the panel is entitled to rely on the complainant’s prima facie case that the respondent lacks such rights or legitimate interests (see Croatia Airlines d.d. v. ...
2015-10-13 - Case Details
The Respondent is Paul Moore, Stylish Solutions Limited of Hull, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, internally represented.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Tucows Inc.
3. ...As noted by the learned panelist in Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, non-use of a domain name for Internet purposes coupled with other ingredients of bad faith intent may nevertheless constitute use. ...
2010-10-12 - Case Details
The Respondent is 王忠文 (Wang Zhong Wen), 临沂商城王忠文汽车用品商行 (lin yi shang cheng wang
zhong wen qi che yong pin shang hang), China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., 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”).
...
2022-09-15 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to a trademark in which it owns rights; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...The Complainant asserts that past UDRP panels have held that a Respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the WhoIs information is not similar to the disputed domain name, citing Tercent Inc. v. ...
2012-06-18 - 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”).
...Respondent maintains that although it was contacted by an individual to purchase the disputed domain name , it was not interested in selling the domain name and never solicited an offer to sell the disputed domain names.1
C. ...
2016-02-23 - Case Details
Respondent is Anonymize, Inc., United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Epik, Inc. ...Respondent knew, or should have known, of
the existence of Complainant’s LINCOLN ELECTRIC trademark when Respondent registered the disputed
domain name. It follows that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The disputed domain name currently resolves to an inactive site, but passive holding of a domain name can
constitute bad faith registration and use under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. ...
2022-10-28 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer
of the disputed domain name.
Notably, the Complainant contends that:
- the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks;
- the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name;
- the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...The Panel notes that in similar circumstances in another case against the same Respondent, the Panel had
held that the disputed domain name was confusingly similar the Complainant’s
trademark (See Danfoss A/S v. ...
2023-10-19 - Case Details