See paragraph 6.1 below as to the precise identity of the Respondent.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name in issue is . The Registrar is Network Solutions, Inc.
3. ...Decision
8.1 In the light of the above findings, the Panel's decision is as set out below.
8.2 The domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark (see paragraph 4(a) (i) of the Policy).
8.3 The Respondent has not got any legitimate interests in the domain name (see paragraph 4(a)ii). ...
2001-05-02 - Case Details
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfy 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”).
...Substantive Analysis
In order to prevail the Complainant must substantiate that the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been met for each Domain Name, namely:
(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2022-02-07 - 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”).
...Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, such as claimed phishing, distributing
malware, or other types of fraud, constitutes bad faith. ...
2026-01-14 - Case Details
By fax to the WIPO Center dated June 26, 2000, the Registrar confirmed that:
3.2.1. it had not received a copy of the Complaint from the Complainant;
3.2.2. it was the Registrar of the domain name the subject of the Complaint;
3.2.3. the current registrant of the domain name is the Respondent and that the status of the domain name was "active";
3.2.4. the agreement with the Respondent provides that, as registrant of the domain name, the Respondent agrees to be bound by the Uniform Policy incorporated therein;
3.2.5. the administrative and billing Contact for the domain name is the Respondent; and
3.2.6. it also provided postal, telephone, facsimile and e-mail contact details for the administrative, technical, zone and billing Contacts.
3.3. ...In relation to element (iii) of paragraph 4(a) of the Uniform Policy, the Complainant contends that the Respondent appears to have registered the domain name "TOURISMA" in bad faith. The Complainant cites that the Respondent is not currently using the domain name for any legitimate purpose and offered to sell the domain name to the Complainant for US$ 75,000, an activity which corresponds to that listed in paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Uniform Policy as evidence of bad faith registration and use of a domain name.
...
2000-08-29 - Case Details
The Respondent is Privacy Protect, LLC of Burlington, Massachusetts, United States of America ("United States") / Stefan Nagies, Icon of Bangkok, Thailand.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name ("the Domain Name") is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the "Registrar").
3. ...At the time the Domain Name was registered, neither the Respondent nor "Bitmain Korea Inc." was commonly known by the Domain Name.
...
2018-09-05 - Case Details
The Center verified that the Complaint 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
The Complainant has made unrebutted assertions that it has not granted any authorization to the
Respondent to register a domain name containing the Complainant’s trademark or otherwise make use of
the Complainant’s mark. There is no evidence that the Respondent has registered the Domain Names as a
trademark or acquired unregistered trademark rights. ...
2022-06-29 - 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 provides that in order to divest a respondent of a domain name, a complainant must demonstrate each of the following:
(i) the 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 domain name; and
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2020-03-23 - Case Details
Limited, United Kingdom (“UK”), represented by Dechert, UK.
The Respondent is Dav labs, UK.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameSilo,
LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Internet
users will break down the Domain Name into four identifiable words “THE”, “WHITE”, “COMPANY”, and
“GROUP”. The Trademark is replicated in the Domain Name. ...
2023-07-13 - Case Details
Respondent is Urgent Passport of West Chester, Pennsylvania, United States / Benjamin Quereau d/b/a Urgent Passport Services Inc. of Chicago, Illinois, United States, self-represented.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...As between competitors, Respondent’s targeting of Complainant’s name when registering the Domain Name does not give rise to any right or legitimate interest in the Domain Name.
...
2017-05-11 - Case Details
The Respondent is Luis Carlos Veloso, Brazil.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with eNom, Inc. (the “Registrar”).
3. ...A core factor in assessing fair use of a domain name is whether the domain name falsely suggests affiliation with the Complainant’s trademark. See section 2.5, WIPO Overview 3.0. ...
2020-02-14 - 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”).
...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”. The Registrar in this case confirmed the disputed domain names were all registered by Domain administrator, Fundacion Privacy Services LTD.
...
2021-09-21 - 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 Registrar promoted the disputed domain name for sale. The Complainant thought it had negotiated the purchase of the disputed domain name through the Registrar. ...
2019-04-16 - Case Details
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The Respondent's first name is Ramy (with an "a" instead of an "e" as in the Domain Names and the invoked trademarks). The Respondent does not give any reason why he has not registered a domain name consisting of his first name Ramy. ...This
does not seem to be the case with regard to the Domain Name.
The Respondent does not contend to have ever used this Domain Name which can
be said to have been held passively and in bad faith by the Respondent (see
decision in WIPO Case No. ...
2001-11-09 - Case Details
The agent stated that the Domain Name had generated a heavy amount of traffic with the result that the price for the Domain Name had been set at $160,000. ...The Complainant refers to the fact that the Domain Name was connected to a webpage indicating that the Domain Name was for sale and featuring a link to the website of Acquire This Name Inc., the Respondent’s sales agent for the Domain Name. ...
2008-09-18 - Case Details
The Respondent is sDns.com of 96-6 Padong Suseonggu, Taegu, 706-070, Republic of Korea.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The Domain Name is .
The Registrar is Domain Direct, Tucows, Inc.
3. ...Specifically, the trademark and domain name share the identical, distinctive word MITSUBISHI, rendering the trademark and domain name confusingly similar in appearance, pronunciation and meaning. ...
2001-11-06 - Case Details
The Respondent is Kim Hyungho, Ilgok-Dong, Gwangju
Buk-Gu, Republic of Korea ("the Respondent").
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name ("the Domain Name") is registered with OnlineNic, Inc ("the Registrar").
3. ...He exhibits a number of web pages featuring the Domain Name and the name AChannel.
The Respondent denies that he registered the Domain Name in bad faith and is using it in bad faith. ...
2004-03-25 - Case Details
In these circumstances, the Panel finds that the Complaint relates to domain names registered by the same domain-name holder in accordance with paragraph 3(c) of the Rules.
...It is common to replace a space between words by a hyphen in domain names, a space being an inadmissible character in domain names. Internet users are therefore likely to assume that this Domain Name is a domain name of the Complainant.
...
2009-02-19 - Case Details
Third, the Complainant registered its current domain name approximately 14 years after the Respondent registered the disputed domain name.
...D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
The Complainant clearly knew, based on the WhoIs record for the disputed domain name annexed to the Complaint, that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in December 1993 – some 14 years before the Complaint first contacted the Respondent in an effort to purchase the disputed domain name. ...
2014-05-07 - 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 disputed domain name is inactive.
page 6
Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not
prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. ...
2023-12-19 - Case Details
The Complainant is HAWE Hydraulik SE, represented by Grosse Schumacher Knauer von Hirschhausen, Germany. The Respondent is Premium Domain Manager, Dream Bigger Ventures GmbH, Germany.
2. The disputed domain name was registered on July 15, 2012, with the European Registry for Internet Domains (EURid) and resolves to a website offering the disputed domain name for sale.
3. ...Pursuant to Article 21(1) of the Commission Regulation (EU) No. 874/2004 and Article B(11)(d)(1)(i)-(iii) of the ADR Rules, the Panel finds that:
- the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right or rights are recognized or established by national law of a Member State and / or EU-law;
- the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
6. ...
2021-07-01 - Case Details