The Respondent is Sampath M. of Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, 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").
...
2017-02-07 - 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 Respondent enquired as to whether the Complainant would be interested in purchasing or renting the said domain name or “for us to set up an affiliate site to sell Halifax bank products on it”. In later correspondence, the Respondent also mentioned the disputed domain name as available for sale along with another domain name . ...
2016-03-01 - Case Details
The Respondent is John Palmer of Sale, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the "Domain Name") is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the "Registrar").
3. ...The Respondent has not explained why it registered the Domain Name. We have a clue, in that a company with a name corresponding to the Domain Name was incorporated just after the Domain Name was registered, but we have nothing from the Respondent in this regard. ...
2017-04-20 - Case Details
The Policy and Rules referred to comprise terms of domain name services agreements which Respondent accepted and agreed to be bound by when he registered the domain names in question. ...Discussions and Findings
Section 4(a) of the Policy entitles a Complainant, such as EBI, to seek an administrative transfer of a second level Internet domain name in the event that it "proves," to the satisfaction of the Panel, three predicates: (1) an accused domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (2) a registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the accused domain name; and (3) a registrant’s domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2001-05-03 - Case Details
Respondent is Donald Growizz, Growizz, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...Respondent registered the
disputed domain name on August 5, 2025. Since registering the disputed domain name, Respondent does
not look to have used the disputed domain name for an active website or page. ...
2025-12-23 - 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”).
...Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy sets forth the following three requirements which have to be met for this Panel to order the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant:
(i) the 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 the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2015-08-28 - 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”).
...The Complainant owns trademark registrations, such as Monaco trademark number 09.27373 MONACOBET and Monaco trademark number 09.27370 MONACOSPORTBET, both registered on July 15, 2009.
The Domain Name was registered on January 21, 2021, and the Domain Name was registered on January 22, 2021. ...
2021-10-04 - Case Details
Respondent is Registration Private, Domains by Proxy, LLC, United States / Park Ave, miniOrange Incorporated, United States, represented by UDRP Legal, United Kingdom.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Center verified that the Complaint together with 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”).
...
2019-08-23 - Case Details
The Respondent is Domains By Proxy, LLC, Registration Private of Scottsdale, Arizona, USA / Vernon Troupe of Clearwater, Florida, USA.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...At some point the Domain Name was registered in the name of the Respondent domain privacy service, which has expressed no interest in the Domain Name in this proceeding. ...
2017-01-25 - 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”).
...Paragraph 4(b) lists four circumstances (without limitation) that shall be evidence of the registration and use of a Domain Name in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) you have registered the domain name in order
to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark
in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern
of such conduct; or
(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.
...
2005-04-06 - Case Details
The Respondent is luo wen qiang, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Gname.com Pte. ...There is also no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent is commonly known by
the disputed domain name or the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the
disputed domain name. ...
2024-02-07 - Case Details
The Respondent is Yeyu of Nanning, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) (the “Registrar”).
3. ...This is the case of a big company bullying a small one.
6. There has been no malicious use of the Domain Name. The Respondent prepare to use the Domain Name for his personal website and never offered the Domain Name for sale to the Complainant.
6. ...
2019-03-07 - Case Details
The Respondent is Noblemay, George May, New South Wales, Umina, Australia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Go Daddy Software.
3. ...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”).
...
2007-11-01 - 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 Respondent is 于青青 (yu qing qing), China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina
(www.net.cn) (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Further, the Registrar has verified that the Respondent’s name is “于青青 (yu qing qing)”, not the disputed
domain name. Nothing on the record indicates that the Respondent has been commonly known by the
disputed domain name.
...
2025-05-15 - Case Details
The Respondent is GMO-Z.com RUNSYSTEM JSC, Viet Nam / Vuong Dinh Trung, My company, 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. ...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”).
...
2021-04-06 - Case Details
The Respondent is SafetyNet Systems Ltd. with offices at Park Hall Road, Unit
C, Longton, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire ST3 5AT, United Kingdom, represented
by its Director, Mr. Paul Cotton.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name at issue is ("the Domain Name"). The
Domain Name is registered with Melbourne IT, Ltd., Level 2, 120 Kings Street,
Melbourne VIC 3000, Australia.
3. ...They point out
that Respondent has no rights or legal interests in respect of the "Clockhouse"
Domain Name, since it is not, or has not been, commonly known by the Domain
Name, nor has it, to the Complainants' knowledge, acquired any trademark or
service rights in the Domain Name. ...
2001-06-12 - 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”).
...Complainant currently operates its online casino at the domain name . Complainant alleges that it has owned that domain name since September 16, 1992. ...
2020-01-27 - Case Details
Consolidation
The Complaint was filed in relation to nominally different domain name registrants. The Complainant argues
that the domain name registrants are the same entity or under common control. The Complainant requests
consolidation of the disputes against the multiple disputed domain name registrants pursuant to paragraph
10(e) of the Rules. 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. ...
2026-04-24 - 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” 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 domain name used by the Complainant to operate its online store, was registered on
July 7, 2016.
...
2026-07-20 - Case Details