Respondent’s address is listed as 6550 Pearl Road, Parma Heights, Ohio, USA.
2. The Domain Name(s) and Registrar
The domain names at issue are JBDOLLARSTRETCHER.COM and JBDOLLARSTRETCHER.NET (the "Domain Names"). ...On September 17, 1999, Respondent registered the domain name JBDOLLARSTRETCHER.COM with NSI. On September 26, 1999, Respondent registered the domain name JBDOLLARSTRETCHER.NET with NSI.
5. ...
2000-09-21 - Case Details
The Respondent is Jamie Parvin, Baby Models, United Kingdom, self-represented.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Hostinger Operations, UAB (the
“Registrar”).
3. ...The Panel finds the MUNCHKINS marks are recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly,
the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the marks for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2026-05-06 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
Collectively, the disputed domain names are referred to herein as the "Domain Names".
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").
...
2017-03-17 - Case Details
Customer 12410746041, Canada / “FAPI III”, United Kingdom.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (“Domain Name”) is registered with Google LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith because of the Respondent’s non-use of the Domain Name.
...
2022-02-09 - Case Details
The Respondent is Guillaume, Guillaume Kuffler, France.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Hostinger, UAB (the “Registrar”).
3. ...In view of the nature of the disputed domain name and the delay between the time that the Complainant first adopted its name in 1999 and when the Respondent registered the disputed domain name, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent’s unauthorised registration of the disputed domain name was intended to cause and exploit confusion between the Complainant’s name and trade marks and the disputed domain name.
...
2020-05-04 - Case Details
The Respondent is Nexperian Holding Limited of Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China / Zhang Chi, Chong Qing De Niu Shi Pin Yin Liao You Xian Gong Si of Chongqing, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with HiChina Zhicheng Technology Ltd. ...Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the Domain Name and that the Domain Name was registered and being used in bad faith. ...
2018-04-17 - Case Details
The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with IONOS SE (the “Registrar”).
3. ...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”).
...
2026-07-20 - Case Details
The Respondent is Dejan Jovanović, Montenegro.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Nor is the Respondent making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The disputed domain name constitutes a passive holding in bad faith.
...
2021-06-11 - Case Details
The Respondent is Milen Radumilo, Romania.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Communigal Communications Ltd.
...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” 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”).
...
2022-05-09 - Case Details
The Respondent is anchordf, anchor drills of Perak, Malaysia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc. ...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”).
...
2012-04-19 - Case Details
The Respondent is Surjeet Singh of Haryana, India / PrivacyProtect.org, Domain Admin, Munsbach, Luxembourg.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Visesh Infotecnics Limited d/b/a Signdomains.com.
3. ...The Complainant had filed a complaint with the .IN Registry against abusive domain name registration of the domain name and the Registrant of the domain name had agreed to transfer the domain name to the Complainant. ...
2011-06-27 - Case Details
Respondent is Globo Design Ltda., with its place of business located at SMLN – Tr 03 – Conj 03 – Casa 06 – Lago Norte, Brasilia, DF 71540-030, Brazil, (the "Respondent").
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name at issue is . The Registrar is Network Solutions, Inc. ...c) The Respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent Complainant, as the owner of the "clic, clic globo.com" and "globo.com" marks, from reflecting its marks in corresponding domain name unless Complainant pays to purchase or rent the domain name from the Respondent.
...
2001-02-08 - Case Details
Respondent is Private Registration, Tax Girls, Nerdy Girl Enterprises, Inc of Santa Rosa, California, United States, represented internally.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...As such, it had no authority to sell the Domain Name. In Respondent’s words, “Respondent has no actual right or possession to sell the domain [name] and in fact is under a term license agreement for the sole use of the domain [name] in question.”
...
2015-07-24 - Case Details
The Respondent is Cristian Liviu Panea, BisonMedia of Bihor, Romania.
2. The Domain Name, Registry and Registrar
The Registry of the disputed domain name is the European Registry for Internet Domains (“EURid” or the “Registry”). ...The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Being aware of the Complainant’s rights in the TENARIS trademark and trade name, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without authorization from the Complainant. ...
2017-12-15 - Case Details
The Respondent is Domain Administration Limited, Parnell, Auckland, New Zealand.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with InnerWise, Inc. d/b/a/ ItsYourDomain.com.
3. ...On July 10, 2007 the Amended Complaint was duly filed naming Domain Administration Limited as the Respondent. The Center verified that the amended 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”).
...
2007-10-03 - Case Details
The Respondent is Perfect Privacy, LLC of Jacksonville, Florida, USA; Christopher Sawicki II of Chicago, Illinois, USA.
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”).
...
2015-03-16 - 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").
...Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of non-exhaustive circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that a respondent has rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name:
(i) before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent's use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) the respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the disputed domain name even if the respondent has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.
...
2017-06-28 - 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”).
...Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires a Complainant to prove that each of the following elements is present:
(i) Each disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of each domain name; and
(iii) Each domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2009-09-07 - 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").
...The Complainant also owns and operates a website under the domain name that was registered on April 28, 1992, and another one under the domain name that was registered on December 8, 1997.
...
2003-10-24 - Case Details
The Complainants are represented by Messrs Newton Silviera, Wilson Silveira e Associados – Advogados of Brazil.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name in dispute is ("the domain name"). The Registrar of the domain name is Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. of New Orleans, Louisiana, United States of America.
3. ...The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment 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").
...
2003-04-29 - Case Details