In 2001 the Complainant registered the disputed domain name and began promoting its business from the
website to which the disputed domain name resolved.
...Group One Holdings Pte Ltd v. Steven Hafto,
WIPO Case No. D2017-0183.
Generally speaking, a finding that a domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith
requires an inference to be drawn that the respondent in question has registered and is using the disputed
domain name to take advantage of its significance as a trademark owned by (usually) the complainant.
...
2026-04-14 - Datos del caso
The disputed domain name diverts to the disputed domain name . This domain name resolves to a website which appears to offer blockchain services.
5. ...No amount of subsequent bad faith use can convert a good faith registration into a bad faith registration (Green Tyre Company Plc. v. Shannon Group,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0877).
In this instance the disputed domain name was registered on October 21, 2001 and the disputed domain name was registered on October 9, 2017.
...
2020-09-02 - Datos del caso
In other words, it is important to ensure fairness to the parties and the maintenance of an inexpensive and expeditious avenue for resolving domain name disputes. (Whirlpool Corporation, Whirlpool Properties, Inc. v. Hui'erpu (HK) electrical appliance co. ltd.,
WIPO Case No. ...The Panel finds that these do not eliminate the confusing similarity between Complainant’s registered AUCHAN Marks and the Domain Names.
Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trade mark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2012-02-15 - Datos del caso
Glukhov is not there shown as the registrant.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name at issue is . The domain name is registered with Melbourne IT Ltd. of Emeryville, CA, U.S.A. ...The advice from the Registrar that the domain name in question is "active" indicates the Respondent has not requested that the domain name at issue be deleted from the domain name database. ...
2002-03-06 - Datos del caso
Respondent is Tom Graham, Washington, DC, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”)
is registered with Tucows.
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”).
...
2005-10-26 - Datos del caso
Respondent is Travelex Forex Money Changer of Delhi, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, 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”).
...
2011-10-20 - Datos del caso
The Respondent is Shuhag Chowdhury, United Kingdom.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Telstra
Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003.
As of the date of this Decision, however, the Respondent has used the disputed domain name for the
purpose of a website, which impersonates the Complainant by using its name, trademark, and corporate
information and seeks to elicit responses from Internet users. ...
2022-06-07 - Datos del caso
Respondent is Privacy Service Provided by Witheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Sameul Sanders, Sam LCC,
U.S.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...Respondent does not use its domain name for any legitimate noncommercial use or in a fair
manner. Respondent has no website with respect to the disputed domain name. ...
2022-05-31 - Datos del caso
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it owns a registered trademark in respect of the term "uniks". The Panel holds that the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the UNIKS trademark. It is well established that where the specific top-level of a disputed domain name (in this case ".com") serves no purpose other than a purely technical one (contrast, for example, a domain name such as ), it may be ignored for the purpose of determining whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar – see for example Rollerblade, Inc. v. ...D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
The Respondent has submitted that the Complaint amounts to Reverse Domain Name Hijacking – which is defined as "using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain name holder of a domain name" - see the Rules, paragraph 1, definition of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking ("RDNH"). ...
2016-06-23 - Datos del caso
The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Respondent does not make a fair or noncommercial use of the disputed domain name...
2019-01-08 - Datos del caso
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”).
...It is established by numerous decisions made under the Policy that adding generic words that are related to a complainant’s business is likely to lead the panel to find a confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the complainant’s trademark (Marriott International, Inc. v. Cafe au lait, NAF Claim No. ...
2011-02-11 - Datos del caso
The Respondent is See PrivacyGuardian.org, Domain Administrator, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Panel finds the marks are recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed
domain name is confusingly similar to the marks for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2024-02-08 - Datos del caso
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”).
...Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must prove each of the following elements with
respect to each disputed domain name:
page 3
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which
the Complainant has rights;
(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.
...
2024-11-05 - Datos del caso
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”).
...Rights or Legitimate Interests
Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, a complainant must make a prima facie showing that a respondent
possesses no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. See, e.g., Malayan Banking Berhad
v. Beauty, Success & Truth International, WIPO Case No. ...
2023-09-29 - Datos del caso
The Respondent is Domain Finance Inc., Sri Damansara, Malaysia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with BulkRegister.com.
3. ...The Complainant also states that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name and that the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith. The Complainant accordingly requests for transfer of the domain name.
...
2006-12-27 - Datos del caso
Thus, the consensus view is that paragraph 4(c) shifts the burden of production to the respondent to come forward with evidence of a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, once the complainant has made a prima facie showing. See, e.g., Document Technologies, Inc. v. ...This “bait-and-switch” tactic has been held to be evidence of bad faith registration and use by other UDRP panels. See World Natural Bodybuilding Federation, Inc. v. Daniel Jones TheDotCafe,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0642 (The panel found that the respondent’s choice of the domain name has created a likelihood of confusion between the domain name and the complainant’s mark, of the kind commonly referred to as “initial interest confusion”. ...
2019-01-18 - Datos del caso
See, e.g., Guccio Gucci S.p.A v. Wode,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0632 (“The registration of 165 Domain Names incorporating the GUCCI Mark is sufficient to show a pattern of conduct in registering domain names in order to prevent the Complainant from reflecting its mark in a corresponding domain name.”); see also Moncler S.r.l. v. ...Finally, the use of false contact information constitutes a further indication of bad faith on the part of Respondent. See F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Bargin Register, Inc. - Client Services,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0474 (“the Panel considers that providing fake contact information when registering a domain name is also indicative of bad faith. ...
2017-05-31 - Datos del caso
The Respondent is DANIEL GALLEGOS, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Given the
distinctiveness and well-established reputation of the Complainant’s Trademark (as also recognized by a
previous UDRP panel: See Stichting BDO v. Bado Unila, WIPO Case No. D2018-1011), and the nature of
the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the Respondent was more likely than not aware of the
Complainant’s earlier rights at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name. ...
2024-04-03 - Datos del caso
Respondent is Yenta Marketing, Inc. of Roswell, Georgia, U.S., appearing on its own behalf.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Grundfos A/S v. Texas International Property Associates,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1448; see also WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 3.8 (panels have found that a domain name registrant will normally be deemed responsible for content appearing on a website at its domain name, even if such registrant may not be exercising direct control over such content, such as in the case of advertising links appearing on an “automatically” generated basis). ...
2014-11-25 - Datos del caso
See Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Sakaria Mohamound Mussafah,
WIPO Case No. D2014-1667.)
The domain name is also confusingly similar to Complainant’s GILEAD trademark insofar as it incorporates in full the distinctive term “Gilead,” adding only a misspelling of the descriptive term “sciences,” as well as the “.net” top-level domain.
...See Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot/Kolawole Feyisitain,
WIPO Case No. D2020-3517.
There is also no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. ...
2021-07-21 - Datos del caso