The Respondent is Swamy Venkidu, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Cylaw Solutions, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...On July 7, 1997, the Respondent registered the domain name , which became operational in 1998.
The disputed domain name was registered on September 23, 2004. ...
2021-02-04 - Case Details
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint and 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”).
...Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that a complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) 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
(ii) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2021-12-01 - 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”).
...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy
establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall
be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain
name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a
respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. ...
2025-12-11 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is registered with Go Daddy Software.
For economy of expression herein, the disputed domain names ,
, , ,
, , , ,
are collectively termed “KAZAA Disputed Domain Names”;
and the disputed domain names and
are collectively termed “KAZA Disputed Domain Names”.
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”).
...
2005-04-14 - 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”).
...It states that the use of a domain name for illegal activity can never confer rights or legitimate interests and that each of the disputed domain names is being used in such a manner. ...
2021-04-06 - 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”).
...Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that a complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) the disputed domain name registered by the respondent 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 the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2023-02-14 - Case Details
Respondent’s Rights or Legitimate Interests in the Domain Name
Respondent has not provided evidence of circumstances of the type specified in Article 4(c) of the Policy, or any other circumstances giving rise to a right or legitimate interest in the Domain Name. ...Decision
For these reasons, the Panel decides that the Domain Name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to the mark in which Complainant has rights, that Respondent has no right or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith by Respondent. ...
2001-01-22 - 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 is confusingly similar to the LEGO trademark. Moreover, the disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s trademark plus the term “bricks”. ...
2019-05-15 - Case Details
The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC (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”).
...
2019-01-21 - Case Details
Respondent is Host Master, Pro IT, United States, represented by Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., United
States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC
(the “Registrar”).
3. ...Because a domain name transfer under the UDRP requires a complainant to prove both bad faith
registration and bad faith use of the subject domain name, the Panel need not address the issue whether
Respondent here ever used the Domain Name in bad faith.
...
2025-07-28 - Case Details
The Respondent is lihongbo of Beijing, China / YinSi BaoHu Yi KaiQi (Hidden by Whois Privacy Protection Service) of Beijing, 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 YOIGO, 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. ...
2016-02-22 - Case Details
The Respondent is Lorna Kang, Telok Intan, Perak, Malaysia. Administrative and Technical Contact for the domain name is the same person, of the same address.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name in issue (hereafter "the domain name").
The domain name was registered with iHoldings.com d/b/a Dotregistrar.com.
The domain name was registered on or about April 1, 2002.
3. ...
2002-07-23 - Case Details
The Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc., Panama / John Martine, United States of America (“United States” or “US”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor holds any trademark or tradename corresponding to the disputed domain name. ...
2020-04-29 - Case Details
The Respondent is Mary Hellen.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.
The Domain Name does not correspond to the name of the Respondent and the Complainant has not found any
registered trademark corresponding to the Domain Name in the name of the Respondent, a search having been
performed on all worldwide trademark databases available online.
...
2023-01-09 - 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”).
...Complainant also owns a United States registration for PMAG which issued to registration on
April 21, 2009 (Registration No. 3608684). Lastly, Complainant also owns and uses the domain name
for a website providing information concerning Complainant and its products and through
which Complainant sells its MAGPUL products.
...
2022-10-18 - 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”).
...The Complainant requests the consolidation of the Complaint against the multiple
disputed domain name registrants pursuant to paragraph 10(e) of the Rules.
The disputed domain name registrants did not comment on the Complainant’s request.
...
2024-02-05 - 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”).
...In all the circumstances, the Panel finds Respondent’s passive holding of the Domain Name
to constitute registration and use of the Domain Name for purposes of the Policy.
...
2019-02-27 - Case Details
The Respondent is Vinay Kochhar, avv of Delhi, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain names and are registered with eNom, Inc.
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”).
...
2017-05-12 - 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”).
...It has also been established by prior
UDRP panels that incorporating a trademark in its entirety into a domain name can be sufficient to establish
that the domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark. ...
2022-06-30 - 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). ...For the Administrative Panel the relevant fact is that the Domain Name registrations are still today in Respondent’s name. Consequently Respondent is in a position to transfer the Domain Names, without prejudice if so wished.
...
2000-03-10 - Case Details