The Complainant is the owner of the following trademark registrations for the sign SMART PRIVACY (the
“SMART PRIVACY trademark”):
− the European Union trademark SMART PRIVACY with registration No. 015086416, registered on
June 8, 2016 for goods and services in International Classes 9, 35, 41, 42, and 45; and
− the United States trademark SMART PRIVACY with registration No. 6263262, applied on October 11,
2017, and registered on February 9, 2021 for goods in International Class 9. ...The Respondent points out that although the
registration date for the Complainant’s European Union trademark SMART PRIVACY is June 8, 2016, the
Complainant’s application for registration of its United States trademark SMART PRIVACY was filed only on
October 11, 2017, and this application stated, “FIRST USE: NONE” and “USE IN COMMERCE: NONE”.
...
2022-10-11 - Datos del caso
/the Registrar. Contact Privacy Inc. acknowledges that there “are many bogus privacy services out there that are domain name profiteers attempting to disguise their identity, yet Contact Privacy Inc. has been known in the industry as a reputable and fair company.”
...Respondent
Respondent did not submit a Response, however, a Response was filed with the Center by Contact Privacy Inc. on August 22, 2014.
6. Discussion and Findings
The Policy is addressed to resolving disputes concerning allegations of abusive domain name registration and use. ...
2014-09-17 - Datos del caso
This Panel accepts that there may well be valid reasons for the use of a privacy registration service but notes that, as stated in F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. PrivacyProtect.org, Domain Admin and Mark Sergijenko,
WIPO Case No. ...This only applies when privacy or proxy registration services i) have some affiliation with the registrars or ii) have established communications with the concerned registrar.
...
2013-05-29 - Datos del caso
1. Potential Uses of Privacy Services
The use of privacy services is a fairly recent phenomenon. Commentators and panelists have noted the potentially legitimate reasons that a domain name registrant may wish to employ a privacy service: 1) ease of account management and re-registration (especially where the registrant has registered a portfolio of domain names), 2) the avoidance of identity theft, and 3) the evasion of spam. ...Complainant basically concedes that it is not relying on the USPTO registration or on the Supplemental Registration. This concession is well made. “Registration on the Supplemental Register is an indication that the mark has not acquired distinctiveness, at least at the time of the registration. ...
2008-01-07 - Datos del caso
The Holder used a privacy service to register the Disputed Domain Name. Use of a privacy service to shield its identity and elude enforcement efforts by the legitimate trademark owner demonstrates the Holder’s bad-faith use and registration of the Disputed Domain Name.
...Panels additionally view the provision of false contact information (or an additional privacy or proxy service) underlying a privacy or proxy service as an indication of bad faith. In some cases, particularly where the respondent does not avail itself of the opportunity to respond to claims based on the timing of the registration of the Disputed Domain Name (such as a materially relevant change in underlying registrant), panels have been prepared to infer that the use of a privacy or proxy service may seek to mask the timing of the respondent’s acquisition of the domain name. ...
2021-12-03 - Datos del caso
Additionally, by failing to disclose the contact data of any arms-length beneficial owner of the Domain Name, as it has apparently failed to do in eight prior proceedings, the Respondent accepts the ramifications of its registration in all such proceedings.
When the Complainant filed this Complaint, the Center contacted the registrar, who identified the Respondent, “Privacy.co.com Privacy ID# 845818, Savvy Investments, LLC Privacy ID# 845818”. ...Privacy.co.com, Savvy Investments, LLC Privacy ID# 911498,
WIPO Case No. D2019-1712; monari GmbH v. Privacy.co.com, Savvy Investments, LLC Privacy ID# 958942,
WIPO Case No. ...
2019-12-12 - Datos del caso
The Policy does not contemplate and should not be required to accommodate privacy or proxy registration services which require communications be made only through that service’s on-line mechanism. ...Whatever a provider undertakes it is for the individual who chooses to use a privacy or proxy registration service, as it is for that privacy or proxy registration service itself, to ensure that there are procedures in place to ensure that any communications directed to the registrant of a domain name in the context of a UDRP dispute are brought to that registrant’s attention.
...
2008-03-17 - Datos del caso
Identification of Respondent or Respondents
Paragraph 1 of the Rules defines “Respondent” as “the holder of a domain name registration against which a complaint is initiated”. In the amendment of October 18, 2011 the Complainant has named and proceeded against both Domain Privacy / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. ...In determining who the proper Respondent should be here, this Panel has had regard to the following:
(a) the fact that the privacy or proxy registration service was the registrant publicly listed in the WhoIs at the time the Complaint was initiated;
(b) that the privacy or proxy registration service and underlying registrant as disclosed have both received notice of the present dispute;
(c) balancing between the interests of the Complainant, registrar, privacy service, registrant and third parties (e.g.: providers such as the Center) who may be affected;
(d) the apparently wide spread use by many registrants of privacy or proxy services;
(e) proportionality of the downside of joining the privacy service to the benefits gained by the Complainant from such joinder;
(f) the diversity of jurisdictional norms and of different degrees of privacy protection by privacy services; and
(g) whether the election made provides certainty and transparency to complainants and respondents about their rights and obligations.
...
2011-12-20 - Datos del caso
Case Number Named Respondent
D2022-0780 Milen Radumilo
D2022-0406 Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot / Milen Radumilo
D2022-0351 Perfect Privacy LLC / Milen Radumilo
D2021-4399 Perfect Privacy, LLC / Milen Radumilo
D2021-4356 Perfect Privacy, LLC / Milen Radumilo
D2021-4220 Contact Privacy Inc., Customer 0162475062 / Milen Radumilo
D2021-4180 Contact Privacy Inc., Customer 0162923862 / Milen Radumilo
D2021-4002 Contact Privacy Inc. ...The Respondent’s bad faith intention is further demonstrated in hiding his identity by using a privacy service
at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. See section 3.6 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.
...
2022-07-21 - Datos del caso
The method by which privacy is secured, however, does not sit easily within the Policy and the Rules.
Typically the customer enters into the usual form of Registration Agreement with the Registrar and then into a proxy agreement with the privacy service, often an affiliate of the Registrar. ...It may be noted that a finding of bad faith registration has been made against a privacy service where domain names incorporating the complainant's trademark continued to be registered by the privacy service after having been put on notice of the complainant's rights: Baylor University v. ...
2009-07-08 - Datos del caso
It may also prompt questions about the extent to which a privacy service which the responsible registrar says is not the registrant in fact, would or could be regarded as having entered into the necessary registration agreement with the registrar which incorporates and provides for the application of the UDRP to the dispute.
...D2011-2069, “[w]hereas the use of a privacy or proxy registration service is not in itself an indication of bad faith, the manner in which such service is used can in certain circumstances constitute a factor indicating bad faith, for example use of a privacy service in combination with provision of incomplete contact information or continued concealment of the ‘true’ or ‘underlying’ registrant”.
...
2012-04-24 - Datos del caso
Respondent, at the time of initial filing of the Complaint, had employed a privacy service to hide its identity, which past UDRP panels have held serves as further evidence of bad faith registration and use.
...Procedural Issues
6.1.1 Respondent’s Identity
The Panel notes that the present case involves privacy and/or proxy registration services. At the time the Complaint was filed on March 24, 2017, the Respondent was identified as “Vietnam Domain Privacy Services”. ...
2017-05-24 - Datos del caso
D2020-2581, Dareos Ltd, Dareos Inc. v. Denis Belov, Asocial Games
Ltd., Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC, DomainsByProxy.com / Aleksandr Strunin, Anastasiya
Voloshina, Yuriy Sharov, Private Whois, Global Domain Privacy Services Inc. / Anastasia Voloshina,
Svetlana Sboychikova, Natalya Pladzidina, Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org) /
Nikolay Nefedov, IT. ...This conduct constitutes opportunistic bad
faith registration under the Policy (see section 3.2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0; see also L’Oréal v. Contact
Privacy Inc. ...
2022-07-18 - Datos del caso
That is sufficient for a finding of bad faith registration.
6.21 There is also the fact that the Domain Name has been registered with a privacy service and the underlying registrant in this case has not been disclosed. ...The respondent named in this proceeding, however, appears to be a privacy registration service provider, not an individual registrant. The Panel has established the existence of Respondent’s bad faith on other grounds; the Panel refrains, therefore, from expressing a view on whether a history of panel decisions finding bad faith in cases naming a privacy registration service has relevance to finding bad faith under the Policy against an individual registrant or real party in interest.”
...
2012-03-22 - Datos del caso
As an additional factor that supports the finding of bad faith in this case, the Panel observes that the
Respondent is apparently concealing its identity in the registration of the disputed domain names through a
privacy service and Fundacion Privacy Services LTD in particular (see section 3.6 WIPO Overview 3.0 and
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/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 5
Pet Plan Ltd v. ...Domain Administrator, Fundacion Privacy Services LTD,
WIPO Case No. D2021-1531, and Pet Plan Ltd. v. Domain Administrator, Fundacion Privacy Services LTD,
WIPO Case No. ...
2022-03-17 - Datos del caso
The Respondent asserts that the central issue in the dispute therefore is one of priority. Given that privacy services are engaged merely as an agency of the domain name registrant, the Respondent contends it would be unreasonable to conclude that the use of a privacy service constitutes a discontinuity of beneficial ownership and priority rights in the registration and use of a domain name.
...The Respondent dismisses the Complainant’s argument that a change in Whois database registrant information based on a registrant’s use of privacy service should constitute a “new registration” for purposes of the Policy. The Respondent argues that a privacy service functions solely in an agency capacity in relation to the actual domain name registrant, and that the Complainant’s position amounts to little more than a disingenuous attempt to destroy the continuity of beneficial ownership and rights of priority in the registration and use of a domain name, without which the Complainant is keenly aware that its case must fail.
...
2007-06-11 - Datos del caso
Withheld for Privacy Purposes,
Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Rajav Rai, WIPO Case No. D2021-3181; Fenix
International Limited v. ...D2024-0113; Fenix International
Limited v. Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Eduardo
Guerrero Romero, WIPO Case No. ...
2025-01-09 - Datos del caso
Indeed, panels have concluded that a Russian doll registration is evidence of bad faith. This is to be compared with the more nuanced position of panels when it comes to the use of a single domain name privacy service (see, for example the discussion in PepsiCo, Inc. v. ...The only relationship eNom has with the Registrant is that of a domain name registrar that offers domain name registration services and legitimate privacy services to its customers. The Registrant mayor may not be a privacy service on its own, but that is irrelevant to eNom’s relationship with it. ...
2012-01-10 - Datos del caso
May 30, 2020 Registration
Private,
Domains By
Proxy, LL
GoDaddy.com, LLC April 3, 2021
November 11, 2020 Privacy.co.com
– 29338,
Jewella
Privacy LLC
Privacy ID#
1228614
Sea Wasp, LLC April 3, 2025
November 18, 2020 South32.com is almost
here […] DreamHost
July 7, 2021 Jewella
Privacy –
29338, Jewella
Privacy LLC
Privacy ID#
1228614
Sea Wasp, LLC April 3, 2025
August 4, 2021 South32 suing
BHP.com Lawsuit
September 17, 2021 Jewella
Privacy –
29338, Jewella
Privacy LLC
Privacy ID#
1228614
Sea Wasp, LLC April 3, 2025
page 4
September 29, 2021 Jewella
Privacy –
29338, Jewella
Privacy LLC
Privacy ID#
1228614
Sea Wasp, LLC April 3, 2025
May 18, 2022 Jewella
Privacy –
29338, Jewella
Privacy LLC
Privacy ID#
1228614
Sea Wasp, LLC April 3, 2025
February 9, 2023 Current content critical
of the Complainant
and others.
...Respondent
In summary, the Respondent contends as follows:
General
Neither Jewella Privacy nor Fabulous.com are owners of the disputed domain name. Jewella Privacy is a
registrant privacy company and Fabulous.com is a hosting company. ...
2023-07-12 - Datos del caso
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Equinor ASA v. Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Gabriella Garlo
Case No. D2021-2885
1. ...Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Gabriella Garlo,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-12-16 - Datos del caso