The Respondent is Anngs Uyenw, Philippines.1
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with
Network Solutions, LLC (the “Registrar”).
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”).
...
2024-01-22 - Case Details
A copy of the Complaint was received on November 20, 2002.
2. The domain name is registered with BulkRegister.com.
3. The domain name at issue was registered on June 18, 2001.
4. ...Full contact details (postal address, telephone number, e-mail address) are provided.
6. The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy applies to the domain name at issue.
7. The domain name is currently locked.
8. ...
2003-02-04 - Case Details
The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisf ied 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”).
...Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy indicates that a respondent may have a right or
legitimate interest in a domain name if it uses the domain name in connection with a bona f ide of fering of
goods or services prior to notice of the dispute.
...
2025-05-22 - Case Details
The Respondent is Bully Tune, Australia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Center verified that 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”).
...
2023-11-30 - Case Details
Respondent is Ahmed ElBaradey of Dubai, United Arab Emirates ("UAE").
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with AE Domain Administration (".aeDA").
3. ...The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the UAE Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy – UAE DRP approved by .aeDA (the "Policy"), the Rules for UAE Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy – UAE DRP (the "Rules"), and the Supplemental Rules for UAE Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy – UAE DRP (the "Supplemental Rules").
...
2017-07-13 - Case Details
The Respondent is Steve Lavin, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...The entirety of the marks is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain
name is confusingly similar to the marks for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2026-04-22 - 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”).
...The disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith.
The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name for a blank website constitutes passive holding in bad faith.
...
2018-04-30 - Case Details
The Respondent is Domains By Proxy, LLC, USA / LightFury Innovations Pvt Ltd, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...There is no evidence that the Complainant has used the Policy to increase leverage in negotiations to purchase the disputed domain name (compare the circumstances of this case with, for example, the circumstances described in Patricks Universal Export Pty Ltd. v. ...
2020-10-20 - Case Details
The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith. The Complainant refers to its registration of the domain name in 2006 and the registration of the disputed domain name in 2009. ...The Respondent also says that the disputed domain name is an “international domain name” whereas the Complainant's mark is only protected in Viet Nam. ...
2010-05-07 - Case Details
The Respondent is Juan Serrano Diaz of Malagon, Spain.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Acens Technologies, S.L.U. ...The disputed domain name was registered on March 21, 2007.
Per the evidence provided by the Complainant the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website.
6. ...
2017-08-03 - Case Details
The Respondent is 山东泡泡糖网络科技有限公司 (Shan Dong Pao Pao Tang Wang Luo Ke Ji You Xian
Gong Si), 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”).
...
2023-12-14 - Case Details
The Respondent is 代振生 (Zhen Sheng Dai), China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Cloud
Yuqu LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Complainant
The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a
cancellation of the Disputed Domain Name.
First, the Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
GERARD DAREL Trademark and its primary domain name , as the radical of the
Disputed Domain Name identically reproduces the Complainant’s GERARD DAREL Trademark and the
radical of its primary domain name . ...
2026-02-27 - Case Details
The Center verified that the Complaint 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”).
...Date of First Use
Date of Registration
EMBARQ
3,403,273
May 17, 2006
March 25, 2008
EMBARQ
3,413,064
May 17, 2006
April 15, 2008
EMBARQ
3,211,948
December 2005
February 20, 2007
EMBARQ
3,399,800
May 17, 2006
March 18, 2008
EMBARQ
3,262,958
May 17, 2006
July 10, 2007
Complainant is the registrant of approximately 864 domain names that consist of or contain the EMBARQ Trademark or variations thereof. Complainant operates its primary website at “www.embarq.com”, using the domain name , which was registered on June 18, 1999.
...
2008-11-13 - 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”).
...The position regarding the disputed domain name is slightly less straightforward. This domain name constitutes the addition of three letters to the Complainant’s DELL mark. ...
2004-11-24 - 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). ...Patron has no active website under "stelladoro.com" and has no legitimate interest in the domain name.
Paragraph 9 (C) -- The domain name has been registered and used in bad faith because:
(i) The circumstances indicate that Patron registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling the domain name to Stella D’oro for consideration in excess of the documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name. ...
2000-02-18 - Case Details
Respondent is Private Registration of Denver, Colorado, United States of America / Francois Carrillo, of Juvignac, France, represented by Muscovitch & Associates, Canada.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with TurnCommerce, Inc. ...The Domain Name was initially registered on January 28, 1999. The Domain Name was acquired by Respondent from the previous registrant on June 20, 2012 for USD 27,500.
5. ...
2018-02-05 - 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”).
...This may include visiting the website linked to the disputed domain name in order to obtain more information about the respondent or its use of the domain name […].” ...
2018-10-02 - Case Details
Fitzroy Beckford, the President of Respondent.
2 The Domain Name and Registrar
2.1 This proceeding is concerned with the domain name ("Domain Name"):
2.2 The Domain Name is registered with Network Solutions, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, United States of America.
3 Procedural History
3.1 This proceeding was initiated under and is being conducted pursuant to:
(a) the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("Policy") adopted by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") on August 26, 1999, and approved by ICANN on October 24, 1999;
(b) the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("Rules") adopted by ICANN on August 26, 1999, and approved by ICANN on October 24, 1999; and
(c) the World Intellectual Property Organization Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy in effect as of December 1, 1999.
3.2 The Complaint was submitted to the World Intellectual Property Organization ("WIPO") in hard copy on March 14, 2000. ...The three elements can be summarized as follows:
(a) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade-mark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(b) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name; and
(c) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith.
...
2000-05-11 - Case Details
In 1999, Complainant bought from a third party the domain names "wishline.com" and "wishline.net". For grounds not detailed by Complainant, it has lost the domain name "wishline.net".
...Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that a complainant must cumulatively establish each of the following three conditions to successfully challenge a registered domain name:
(1) that the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and,
(2) that the Respondent has no legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
6.2 Luxurychannel.com, "luxurychannel.net", "theluxurychannel.com" and "theluxurychannel.net".
6.2.1 Identity or Confusing Similarity
According to articles 6 and 9, paragraph 3, of the Council Regulation (EC) No. 40/94 of December 20, 1993, on the Community Trademark, rights to a Community trademark are conferred only from the date of publication of registration of the trademark at issue.
...
2000-10-09 - Case Details
The Respondent is Elarco/Pablo Pesetas, of Spain.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with CSL Computer Service Langenbach GmbH dba Joker.com.
3. ...Nor has the Complainant given the Respondent permission to register the domain name . The Respondent has not after the registration used the domain name in such a way that it has created a legitimate interest in the domain name since, inter alia, nothing indicates that the Respondent is commonly known under the registered domain name. ...
2008-07-21 - Case Details