The Panel finds that Complainant provided ample evidence to show that registration and use of the XIIDRA and XIIDRA IINSIDER marks predate the registration of the Domain Name by Respondent. ...See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.2; see also TTT Moneycorp Limited v. Privacy Gods / Privacy Gods Limited,
WIPO Case No. D2016-1973.
The Panel also finds that Respondent’s awareness of Complainant’s trademark rights at the time of registration suggests bad faith. ...
2021-08-26 - Datos del caso
On January 2, 2024, the Registrar transmitted by email to
the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which
differed from the named Respondent (Redacted for Privacy, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy
ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. ...See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.2; and see also TTT Moneycorp
Limited v. Privacy Gods / Privacy Gods Limited, WIPO Case No. D2016-1973.
The Panel therefore finds that Respondent’s awareness of Complainant’s trademark rights at the time of
registration suggests bad faith. ...
2024-02-26 - Datos del caso
Based on the undisputed information and the evidence provided by the Complainant, the Panel finds that at
the time of registration of the Domain Names the Respondent was or should have been aware of the
Complainant’s Trade Marks, since:
- the registration of the Domain Names occurred some fifty-seven years after the registration of the earliest of
the Trade Marks;
- the Trade Marks have a worldwide reputation, as evidenced, inter alia, by the more than 12,000
CARREFOUR stores in more than 30 countries and the 1.3 million daily unique visitors in the stores;
- a simple trade mark register search, or even an Internet search, prior to registration of the Domain Names
would have informed the Respondent of the existence of the Trade Marks.
...case=D2015-0640
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
CARREFOUR SA v. Privacy Department, IceNetworks Ltd.
Case No. D2025-2635
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Names and Registrars
3. ...
2025-09-03 - Datos del caso
On March 20, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the
Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name
which differed from the named Respondent (Redacted for Privacy, Privacy service provided by Withheld for
Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. ...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Policy paragraph 4(b) provides four examples of situations that would give rise to findings of bad faith
registration and use of a disputed domain name, but failure to fall within those parameters does not prevent a
Policy panel from declaring bad faith registration and use based on other appropriate rationales. ...
2025-06-06 - Datos del caso
Privacy service provided
by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Tony Carter, WIPO Case No. D2022-1913 (“their trademark is a known
trademark within the hotel industry”); InterContinental Hotels Group PLC, Six Continents Limited v. Privacy
Service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Nicholas Jaar, WIPO Case No. D2022-1579 (“the composition
of the Domain Name clearly referencing the Complainant’s widely used mark makes it clear that the
Respondent registered the Domain Name with the Complainant in mind”).
...
2022-08-26 - Datos del caso
The Complainant owns a global portfolio of trademarks consisting of or comprising the term ROCKSTAR GAMES, including the United States Trademark Registration No. 2456387 for the word mark ROCKSTAR GAMES registered since May 29, 2001, for goods of class 9 of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Good and Services for the Purpose of the Registration of Marks.
...Facebook, In. and Instagram, LLC v. Domain Administrator, Fundacion Privacy Services Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2019-2518; FPS Networks, Inc. v. Domain Administrator, Fundacion Privacy Services LTD,
WIPO Case No. ...
2020-06-03 - Datos del caso
Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name post-dates the registration of Complainant’s Trade Mark. Due to the acclaimed reputation of the Complainant’s BVLGARI/BULGARI brand, the Respondent would have known or would have at least been aware of the Complainant’s
pre-existing rights to these terms at the time the Disputed Domain Name was registered. ...The Complainant has developed a significant reputation in the Trade Mark and it is famous world-wide. The Complainant’s registration of the Trade Mark predates the registration of the Disputed Domain Name by 29 years. Panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith (see section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0). ...
2019-08-12 - Datos del caso
The Respondent’s use of a fake logo for “RMR Group”, on the website, further infers that the Respondent’s underlying intent, was that of disrupting the Complainant’s business in some way. This is not conduct consistent with registration and use in good faith.
In the case at hand, the Respondent has used a proxy service for the 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. ...
2019-08-28 - Datos del caso
D2010-0636; U. S. Natural Resources, Inc. v. Rampe Purda/Privacy--Protect.org,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0720; LEGO Juris A/S v. Rampe Purda/Privacy--Protect.org,
WIPO Case No. ...D2010-0636; U. S. Natural Resources, Inc. v. Rampe Purda/Privacy--Protect.org,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0720;LEGO Juris A/S v. Rampe Purda/Privacy--Protect.org,
WIPO Case No. ...
2010-12-07 - Datos del caso
The Respondent is Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Vivas media, Israel.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (‘the Domain Name’) is registered with NameCheap, Inc.
.../Dawn Osborne/
Dawn Osborne
Sole Panelist
Date: March 31, 2022
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. v. Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Vivas media
Case No. D2022-0563
1. The Parties
2. ...
2022-04-04 - Datos del caso
ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Sandals Resorts International 2000 Inc. v. Privacy service provided by
Withheld for Privacy ehf / Kameila Ricketts
Case No. D2022-2639
1. ...case=D2022-1289
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Sandals Resorts International 2000 Inc. v. Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Kameila Ricketts
Case No. D2022-2639...
2022-09-16 - Datos del caso
ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Veikkaus Oy v. Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf /
Christopher Hammer
Case No. DIO2022-0023
1. ...The Complainant is the owner of several Finnish trademark registrations for VEIKKAUS, such as Finish
trademark registration nos. 248158 and 266351. Both predate the registration of the Domain Name.
According to the available WhoIs record, the Domain Name was registered on March 23, 2021. ...
2022-08-24 - Datos del caso
Lastly, the Complainant submits that the Respondent’s initial use of a privacy service to hide his identity is additional evidence of his bad faith registration and use.
B. Respondent
In his informal email communication of June 15, 2021, the Respondent only states that he has no intention of using the disputed domain name for any kind of business or private use but would be willing to sell it if the offering price meets his expectations.
...Indeed, as held in section 3.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, “the transfer of a domain name registration from a third party to the respondent is not a renewal and the date on which the current registrant acquired the domain name is the date a panel will consider in assessing bad faith (…) In cases where the domain name registration is masked by a privacy or proxy service and the complainant credibly alleges that a relevant change in registration has occurred, it would be incumbent on the respondent to provide satisfactory evidence of an unbroken chain of registration; respondent failure to do so has led panels to infer an attempt to conceal the true underlying registrant following a change in the relevant registration”.
...
2021-08-16 - Datos del caso
ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
FNAC Darty Participations et Services v. Privacy Service Provided by
Withheld for Privacy ehf/yh dai
Case No. D2022-2469
1. The Parties
The Complainant is FNAC Darty Participations et Services, France, represented by IP Twins, France.
The Respondent is Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland/ yh dai, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name < fnac-shop.com > is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...
2022-09-02 - Datos del caso
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Latham & Watkins LLP v. Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Sefo Amama, ks worldwide
Case No. ...The Parties
The Complainant is Latham & Watkins LLP, United States of America (“United States” or “US”), represented by Latham & Watkins LLP, United States.
The Respondent is Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Sefo Amama, ks worldwide, United States.
2. ...
2021-09-28 - Datos del caso
In accordance with section 3.6 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 there are recognized legitimate uses of privacy
and proxy registration services; the circumstances in which such services are used, including whether the
respondent is operating a commercial and trademark-abusive website, can however impact a panel’s
assessment of bad faith. The Panel considers that, taking into account all circumstances of this case, the
Respondent’s use of privacy service constitutes further evidence of bad faith registration and use of the
Disputed Domain Name.
...
2023-04-14 - Datos del caso
On January 12, January 13, January 15, and January 16, 2024, the
Registrars transmitted by emails to the Center their verification responses disclosing registrant and contact
information for the Domain Names which differed from the named Respondents (Domains By Proxy, LLC,
Williams Mills, Repossessed by Go Daddy, Privacy Protect, LLC, Contact Privacy Inc. Customer
7151571251, Redacted for Privacy, Data Redacted, and Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy
ehf) and contact information in the Complaint.
...On the contrary, it results from the evidence on record that the registration of the Complainant’s FEDRIGONI
trademark predates the Respondent’s registration of the Domain Names. ...
2024-06-07 - Datos del caso
Discussion and Findings
Preliminary Matters
As a preliminary issue the Panel notes this is a case where one of the Respondents (Domain Admin, Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org.) appears to be a privacy or proxy registration service while the other Respondent (Mark Smith) appears to be the substantive Respondent. The Panel in this case adopts the approach of most UDRP panels, as outlined in the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview 2.0"), paragraph 4.9, as follows "Most panels in cases involving privacy or proxy services in which such disclosure of an underlying registrant has occurred, appear to have found it appropriate to record in their issued decision both the name of the privacy or proxy registration service appearing in the WhoIs at the time the complaint was filed, and of any disclosed underlying registrant". ...
2015-06-29 - Datos del caso
ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Bureau Veritas v. Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf /
Narmatha Manokaran
Case No. D2022-0703
1. ...Winterfeldt
Sole Panelist
Date: April 22, 2022
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Bureau Veritas v. Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Narmatha Manokaran
Case No. D2022-0703
1. The Parties
2. ...
2022-04-25 - Datos del caso
ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
La Société Nexity v. Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf /
john doe
Case No. D2022-2021
1. The Parties
The Complainant is La Société Nexity, France, represented internally.
The Respondent is Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / john doe, France.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc.
...
2022-10-28 - Datos del caso