The Respondent is Abayomi Akintade, Nigeria.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...The Domain Name only differs from the EXTRA LIFE mark (and the Complainant’s domain
name), by the addition of the word “support” at the beginning of the Domain Name. ...
2023-08-02 - Case Details
The Respondent is Whoisguard Inc. of Panama, Panama / Mark Davis of San Francisco, United States of America (“United States”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with eNom, Inc. ...Newell states that for these reasons, and given the inclusion of INTERBRAND in the disputed domain name and the fact that no website loads at the disputed domain name, “it is difficult to see how the Respondent can credibly claim a legitimate interest in the domain name.”
...
2016-06-16 - Case Details
Furthermore, the disputed domain name is diverted to a website “www.ltq.cc” indicating that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for any legitimate use. ...The second Respondent, therefore, denies the Complainant’s allegations of bad faith activities concerning the registration and use of other domain names stating those were registrations obtained by the first Respondent.
Reverse domain name hijacking
The Respondent requests the Panel to make a finding of reverse domain name hijacking, and contends that the Complainant is abusing the domain name dispute resolution system after the Complainant failed to initially register the disputed domain name and then acquire the disputed domain name through subsequent negotiation with the assistance of its lawyers to purchase the disputed domain name from the Respondent.
6. ...
2017-07-27 - Case Details
The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on June 11, 2010, adding the disputed domain name . On June 11, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to Above.com, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name . ...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”).
...
2010-08-09 - 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”).
...Elements of a Claim
A complainant must prove three elements to obtain relief: (i) the domain name is identical or confusingly
similar to a trademark in which the complainant has rights; (ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests in the domain name; and (iii) the respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith.
...
2026-08-14 - Case Details
Identity or Confusing Similarity
Complainant contends that the domain name at issue is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark and trade name "Porsche". According to Complainant, that mark and name are well known all over the world and integrated in its entirety in the domain name at issue. ...In summary, Complainant contends that an Internet user will believe that a website available under such a domain name is at least sponsored by, or affiliated to, the owner of the trademark which forms a component of the domain name.
...
2002-11-20 - 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 Complainant’s trademark is reproduced in its entirety in the disputed domain name . The disputed domain name differs from the Complainant’s ROOMS TO GO trademark only by the suffix “clearance”. ...
2019-02-18 - Case Details
The Respondent is Telecom Tech Corp. of Panama City, Panama.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Name.net LLC.
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” 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”).
...
2009-11-23 - Case Details
The Respondent is Hu Yanlin of Beijing, the People's Republic of China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (“Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Moniker Online Services, LLC.
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”).
...
2010-05-17 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is registered with Interlakenames.com LLC. The disputed domain name is registered with Domain Ala Carte, LLC (collectively, the “Registrars”).
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”).
...
2019-01-08 - Case Details
The Respondent is Reznichenko Dmiriy, Ukraine.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Regtime Ltd. ...According to the Complainants, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name is not in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. ...
2022-02-11 - Case Details
The Respondent in this Administrative Proceeding is CompuMedic with an address of World Trade Center, Suite 250L, San Francisco, California 94111, USA.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is . The Registrar of this domain name is Network Solutions, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, USA.
...Oppenheim for the purpose of registering the [subject] domain name. It is alleged that by registering the subject domain name, the Respondent "…has prevented the Complainant from reflecting its COMPUMEDICS trademark in a corresponding domain name with a generic top level domain."
...
2001-06-26 - Case Details
The Respondent is Petar Ivanov, Georgia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <1xbet.md> is registered with Information Technology and Cyber Security Service (the “Registrar”).
3. ...At the date of the decision, the website at the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website.
6. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is identical to its distinctive 1XBET trademark as the disputed domain name does not contain any additions or alterations. ...
2022-01-11 - Case Details
The Respondent is Kamil Gaede, Poland, self-represented.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with TheNameCo LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Additionally, the Complainant notes that the Respondent sought to sell the disputed domain name for well in excess of its out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; moreover, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name following the Complainant’s inadvertent failure to renew its disputed domain name registration.
...
2021-12-28 - Case Details
The Agreement calls for the Respondent to receive Internet message traffic addressed to the domain name, .
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The Domain name is and the Registrar is Register Com, Inc., of New York, USA.
3. ...Discussions and Findings
Section 4(a) of the Policy entitles a complainant, such as Chevy Chase Bank, 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 a 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.
...
2001-05-14 - Case Details
The Complainant filed an
amended Complaint on February 11, 2026
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(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. ...
2026-03-16 - Case Details
The Registrar responded on August 29, 2008, confirming that the Domain Names were registered with it, that according to its records the registrant of the first Domain Name was John Christopher and the registrant of the second Domain Name was Christopher John, that the Respondent was Christopher John, that the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”) applied to the registration, that the Domain Names would be locked during this proceeding, and that the registration agreement was in English and stated that the Registrant submitted to the jurisdiction of the courts as provided in the Policy. ...The Complainant submits that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant's mark and that the name given for the Respondent in the Domain Name registrations is a pseudonym for Infinet Communications Group.
...
2008-11-03 - Case Details
The Respondent is Jinhui Jinmingwang of Hang Zhou, Shaanxi, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with DropCatch.com 720 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”).
...
2018-04-16 - Case Details
Respondent is Private, Fair Oaks, California, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.
3. ...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”).
...
2008-10-16 - Case Details
Respondent is Samuel Levine, United States, represented by Coates IP LLP, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (hereinafter the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with
1API GmbH (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The entirety of the Mark is reproduced within the Disputed Domain Name. Accordingly, the Disputed Domain
Name is identical to the Mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2024-08-23 - Case Details