It may 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, decided as it was on quite particular facts (in which the privacy service and identified registrant were both considered to be proper Respondents, and were found to be related for quite particular reasons, including the former’s apparent registration of the domain name for the latter), could stand for a proposition of such potentially wide-reaching application. ...
2012-04-25 - Datos del caso
The Panel further observes that the Respondent concealed its identity in the registration of the disputed
domain name through Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, a company which is frequently named as the
respondent in UDRP cases. ...If that is so, the use of this particular service arguably now carries with it a presumption of
bad faith registration and use.”
The Panel in the matter at hand also infers from the fact that the Respondent used the services of Fundacion
Privacy Services LTD and the Registrar to conceal its true identity also in these administrative proceedings
as a presumption of use of the disputed domain name bad faith.
...
2023-03-28 - Datos del caso
v) That the disputed domain names were registered with the same Registrar, under a privacy service.
Moreover, the Panel notes that the registration details for three of the disputed domain names incorporate
the registrant name “Nemanja Krecelj” and the registrant name of the final disputed domain name does not
appear to correlate to an actual entity, such as an individual, group, or company.
...DCC2021-0002;
Fenix International Limited v. Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for
Privacy ehf / Bent Harracksingh, WIPO Case No. ...
2022-08-03 - Datos del caso
The recitals to Procedural Order No. 1 which observed that (a) the registration details provided by the Registrar appeared to be those of the Registrar and/or its privacy service rather than that of the underlying registrant of the Domain Name; and (b) if this was correct the Registrar prima facie was in breach of Appendix E to the ICANN Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data. ...ii) Providing all Registration Data retained by or under the control of the Registrar, including but not limited to (a) the name of the registrant (if different from Super Privacy Service Ltd); and (b) all geographical addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses for the registrant of the Domain Name.
...
2019-10-29 - Datos del caso
The exact details of what happened at this time are unclear but it would appear that for one reason or another, the domain name at that time expired.
4.4 The Domain Name was registered on November 26, 2004.
4.5 Who exactly is behind the current registration is unclear. The name given by the Registrar for the Respondent would suggest that the Domain Name is registered in the name of a WhoIs Privacy service. ...Additionally, whois privacy services are not forced to operate in any one manner. As the panel surely is aware, in compliance with intellectual property laws, directNIC is not able to operate its whois privacy service in the manner that Godaddy operates because their whois privacy service has 3 patents. ...
2009-04-27 - Datos del caso
The Respondent is Domain Privacy, Domain Name Privacy Inc, Cyprus.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Communigal Communications Ltd. ...Preliminary procedural issue
The Panel notes that the Complaint was filed against REDACTED FOR PRIVACY and that the Complainant
indicated in the Complaint, section II.B.6, that the Respondent’s identity was unknown due to the fact that a
privacy service provider was used during the registration of the disputed domain name.
...
2024-07-08 - Datos del caso
The one exception is , where the domain servers are “ns1.thednscloud.com” and “ns2.thednscloud.com”.
4.7 Who is behind the registration of the Domain Name is unclear. They have at all relevant times been registered in the name of Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, which is a “privacy service” that has (according to the Registrar) entered into some sort of contractual relationship with the Registrar.
4.8 Fundacion Privacy Services LTD has previously been named as a Respondent in over 170 decisions under the Policy. ...From this the Panel drew the provisional inference that Fundacion Privacy Services LTD is the privacy service of the Registrar. These facts and that inference were put to the Registrar in Procedural Order No. 1. ...
2021-07-15 - Datos del caso
Identity of Respondent
In accordance with paragraph 1 of the Rules (“Respondent means the holder of a domain-name registration against which a complaint is initiated”), Complaint named Whois-Privacy Services as the respondent in its initial Complaint. ...The consensus view in WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 3.9, begins “[a]lthough use of a privacy or proxy registration service is not in and of itself an indication of bad faith”.
In this case the only Registrar conduct identified as improper is the alleged post-Complaint transfer of the disputed domain name from the privacy service to the registrant Econsult Ltd., d.b.a. ...
2012-08-21 - Datos del caso
Procedural Issues
(i) The Respondent’s identity
The Panel notes that the present case involves privacy registration services. At the time the Complaint was filed on May 7, 2019, the Respondent was identified as “Vietnam Domain Privacy Services”. .../Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft/Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org; ICS INC./GEORGE WASHERE/WHOIS PRIVACY PROTECTION SERVICE, INC.; Diamond Point Enterprises Limited/Whois Privacy Services Pty Ltd; Transure Enterprise Ltd/Above.com Domain Privacy; Online Management/Domains By Proxy, LLC; Ryan G Foo, PPA Media Services/Fundacion Private Whois; Pham Dinh Nhut/Vietnam Domain Privacy Services; Pavol Icik, Poste Restante/Dragan Platic, Poste restante/Privacy Protection Service,
WIPO Case No. ...
2019-07-10 - Datos del caso
It may be inferred that the Complainant allowed its registration of the Domain Name to lapse.
The Registrar reports that the Domain Name was registered on March 27, 2016, in the name of the domain privacy service identified as the Respondent Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp. ...Paragraph 1 of the Rules defines the “respondent” in a UDRP proceeding as “the holder of a domain name registration against which a complaint is initiated”. As confirmed by the Registrar, Domain Admin, WhoIs Privacy Corp. is the current holder of the Domain Name registration and is named as a Respondent. ...
2021-06-28 - Datos del caso
Customer 0147901156, Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0150243305, Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0148620601, Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0150016370, Contact Privacy Inc. ...Customer 0147901156, Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0150243305, Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0148620601, Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0150016370, Contact Privacy Inc. ...
2018-05-29 - Datos del caso
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Fenix International Limited v. Withheld For Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf/ Kazi Otr
Case No. D2021-2498
1. ...DCC2021-0002; Fenix International Limited v. Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Bent Harracksingh,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-11-10 - Datos del caso
The Complainant also cites previous UDRP panel decisions to argue that employing a privacy service to hide one’s identity, serves as further evidence of bad faith registration and use.
Lastly, the Complainant contends that the Respondent’s bad faith is further evidenced by the fact that the Respondent did not reply to the numerous cease and desist letters sent prior to commencing the proceedings.
...D2020-2464, and CCA and B, LLC v. Domain Administrator, Fundacion Privacy Services LTD,
WIPO Case No. D2021-1531);
(ii) this Panel also accepts that the offer to sell the disputed domain name for an amount far in excess of out-of-pocket expenses demonstrates bad faith, also taking into account the lack of legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (section 3.1.1 WIPO Overview 3.0); and
(iii) the Respondent is concealing its identity in the registration of the disputed domain name through a privacy service and Fundacion Privacy Services LTD in particular (section 3.6 WIPO Overview 3.0; Pet Plan Ltd v. ...
2021-10-05 - Datos del caso
Also on January 5, 2024, the Registrar transmitted by email to
the Center its verification response disclosing the registrant as “Privacy Protect, My Domain Provider”, which
dif fered f rom the named Respondent (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY) and contact information in the
Complaint. ...Depending on the facts and circumstances of a
particular case, e.g., where a timely disclosure is made, and there is no indication of a relationship beyond
the provision of privacy or proxy registration services, a panel may find it appropriate to apply its discretion to
record only the underlying registrant as the named respondent. ...
2024-02-26 - Datos del caso
BARCLAYSCAPITALCAREERS.COM Privacy--Protect.org/Milan Kovac,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1015; The American Automobile Association, Inc. v. aaaaautoinsurance.com Privacy--Protect.org, aaa-netaccess.com Privacy--Protect.org, aaanetacceess.com Privacy--Protect.org, Isaac Goldstein,
WIPO Case No. ...Additional factors retained by the Panel as indicative of bad faith registration and use of the Domain Name include:
a. The Respondent’s choice to register the Domain Name using a privacy service in combination with what is likely to be the provision of incomplete/inaccurate contact information (see paragraph 3.9 of the WIPO Overview 2.0);
b. the Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint and provide any evidence of bona fide registration and use (see Awesome Kids LLC and/or Awesome Kids L.L.C. v. ...
2013-02-14 - Datos del caso
The Center further noted:
“In this case, the Complaint was filed with the Center naming a privacy or proxy registration service as the respondent, and the registrar in replying to the Center's verification request disclosed an underlying registrant. ...The principal reason for this is that in this Panel's view a registrant that chooses to register through a privacy service and the registrar that provides such registration must bear some of the consequences of anonymous registration. ...
2009-05-22 - Datos del caso
Recognizing that domain names may be registered through a domain “privacy” or “proxy” registration service (such as the Respondent WDP), paragraph 4(b) of the Rules provides that the respondent’s data may be updated if the privacy service provider reveals the “underlying customer data” within a certain time, or thereafter at the Panel’s discretion. ...This is particularly likely in cases where the respondent takes other steps to conceal its identity and fails to respond to trademark and UDRP claims.
As the domain privacy service is the registrant of record, it may be named initially as a respondent in a UDRP proceeding and then identify the “beneficial owner” or “underlying registrant” that contracted for the privacy registration. ...
2020-06-29 - Datos del caso
Complainant takes the view that even if Respondent denied knowledge of the COUPONCABIN marks, it must be deemed to have at least constructive notice of Complainant’s group of companies’ trademark rights in the COUPONCABIN mark by virtue of the USPTO trademark registration.
Complainant also points to the fact that Respondent registered the disputed domain name through the use of a privacy shield service which in the case in hand caused further evidence of bad faith.
...D2011-0487; DB Corp. Ltd. v. Above.com Pty. Ltd. Domain Privacy / Host Master, Transure Enterprise Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1581). Against this background, the Panel finds nothing in this case that – in light of Complainant’s undisputed allegations and in the absence of any Response – would bring Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name in line with the justification principles set forth by paragraph 4 (c) of the Policy.
...
2011-11-25 - Datos del caso
Even though Moniker Privacy Services is listed as the Registrant, you still control the domain and retain the full benefits, responsibilities, and ownership of the domain name registration.”
...As described on the Registrar’s website, registration in the name of its privacy service leaves the beneficial owner contractually in control of a domain name. ...
2008-02-29 - Datos del caso
As has been noted by previous Panels, the Policy and Rules were adopted prior to the existence of privacy services and take no account of anything but a single and identified respondent, see the Rules, paragraph 1, which defines Respondent as “the holder of a domain-name registration against which a complaint is initiated.” ...However, as noted by the Panel in the decision cited directly above, a registrant that chooses to register through a privacy service and the registrar that provides such registration must bear some of the consequences of anonymous registration. ...
2010-11-02 - Datos del caso