This communication was not bona fide but instead was an attempt to inter alia commit fraud and deceptively steal sensitive information. Moreover, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name for the purpose of capitalizing on the reputation of the Complainant. ...
2016-03-11 - Case Details
D2015-0285, in which the fact that the disputed domain name was being used to perpetrate a fraud against the complainant was found by the panel to constitute evidence of registration and use in bad faith.
...
2016-04-27 - Case Details
Patton and confirmed as correct by the Registrar; and
c) Mr Donaghey provided an email response on February 21, 2018, the full text of which is as follows:
“SOme comoany WANT to capture MY domains! with idiotic proes of some fraud, and YOU (WIPO) asking money from me just for my responce to protect MY domains from capturing ?????? ...
2018-04-17 - Case Details
As a banking group, the Complainant continually faces phishing attempts and must be especially vigilant in protecting its clients from fraud.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy sets out the three requirements that the Complainant must prove in order to succeed:
(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2018-03-09 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have ruled that the mere addition of a non-significant element does not sufficiently differentiate the disputed domain name from the registered trademark: "[t]he incorporation of a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered mark" (Britannia Building Society v. Britannia Fraud Prevention,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0505). See also, "the trademark RED BULL is clearly the most prominent element in this combination, and that may cause the public to think that the domain name is somehow connected with the owner of RED BULL trademark" (Red Bull GmbH v. ...
2017-07-26 - Case Details
In light of these elements, the Panel finds that the Domain Name has been used to effect fraud on the Complainant, a circumstance that in itself is demonstrative of bad faith as already supported by several other panels (See, e.g., CCS Media Limited and CCS Media Holdings Limited v. ...
2018-06-20 - Case Details
The Complainant operates a website located at “www.pestcontroloffice.com” (“the Complainant’s website”),
which includes a drawing (in a red circle) of a rat wearing an apron and holding a broom, and states “Pest
Control”, “Parent / Legal guardian for the artist Banksy” and “PLEASE BE VIGILANT TO CYBER FRAUD
Ensure all interactions and correspondence ONLY come from the domain pestcontroloffice.com”.
...
2025-03-27 - Case Details
Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., the sale of counterfeit goods or
illegal pharmaceuticals, phishing, distributing malware, unauthorized account access/hacking,
impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4.
Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain
name constitutes bad faith under the Policy.
...
2023-12-08 - Case Details
Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., the sale of counterfeit goods or
illegal pharmaceuticals, phishing, distributing malware, unauthorized account access/hacking,
impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a
respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.
...
2023-10-12 - Case Details
Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., the sale of counterfeit goods or
illegal pharmaceuticals, phishing, distributing malware, unauthorized account access/hacking,
impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a
respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. ...
2023-10-12 - Case Details
“Panels have categorically held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., the sale of counterfeit
goods or illegal pharmaceuticals, phishing, distributing malware, unauthorized account access/hacking,
impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a
respondent.”); Morrison & Foerster LLP v. ...
2023-10-11 - Case Details
Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., the sale of counterfeit goods or
illegal pharmaceuticals, phishing, distributing malware, unauthorized account access/hacking,
impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4.
Having reviewed the record, the Panel f inds the Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain name
constitutes bad faith under the Policy.
...
2023-11-02 - Case Details
WIPO Overview 3.0, section
2.13.1 (“Panels have categorically held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., the sale of
counterfeit goods or illegal pharmaceuticals, phishing, distributing malware, unauthorized account
access/hacking, impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate
interests on a respondent.”).
Complainant has satisfied the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2023-11-02 - Case Details
Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal
activity (e.g., the sale of counterfeit goods or illegal pharmaceuticals, phishing, distributing malware,
unauthorized account access/hacking, impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) can never confer
rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.
...
2023-11-01 - Case Details
Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., the sale of counterfeit goods or
illegal pharmaceuticals, phishing, distributing malware, unauthorized account access/hacking,
impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4.
Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain
name constitutes bad faith under the Policy.
...
2023-11-01 - Case Details
In addition, section 2.13.1 of
WIPO Overview 3.0 reads: “Panels have categorically held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity
(e.g., the sale of counterfeit goods or illegal pharmaceuticals, phishing, distributing malware, unauthorized
account access/hacking, impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or
legitimate interests on a respondent.”
In this case, the Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. ...
2023-11-28 - Case Details
Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., the sale of counterfeit goods or
illegal pharmaceuticals, phishing, distributing malware, unauthorized account access/hacking,
impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a
respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.
...
2023-12-01 - Case Details
Moreover, section 2.13 of WIPO Overview 3.0 states:
“Panels have categorically held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., the sale of counterfeit
goods or illegal pharmaceuticals, phishing, distributing malware, unauthorized account access/hacking,
impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a
respondent”.
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?...
2023-11-22 - Case Details
Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., the
sale of counterfeit goods or illegal pharmaceuticals, phishing, distributing malware, unauthorized account
access/hacking, impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) constitutes bad faith.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4.
Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the third element of the Policy has been established.
7. ...
2023-11-20 - Case Details
Panels have repeatedly held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (including, e.g.,
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 5
impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) does not confer rights or legitimate interests on a
respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.
...
2023-11-17 - Case Details