Author: Staff

Analysis of WIPO Domain Name Dispute Case D2021-0360: A Study in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking In the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) case number D2021-0360, the dispute revolved around the domain name “shaktiman.com”. The complainant in this case was Tirth Agro Technology Private Limited, while the respondent was Anuj Bhargava, Anroh Global Services Pvt. Ltd.…

The case WIPO Case D2019-1797 involved a dispute between the Seminole Tribe of Florida and propertyusa, ltd over the domain names , , and . The Seminole Tribe claimed rights in the term “Seminole Casino” due to their longstanding use in commerce related to casinos and association with Hard Rock International, Inc. However, the Panel…

In WIPO Case D2019-2441, Advice Group S.P.A., an Italian marketing firm, contested the domain name “advicegroup.com,” owned by Michele Dinoia of Macrosten LTD, Cyprus. The domain was registered in September 2005, before the Complainant’s trademark registration in December 2016. The Complainant argued that the domain was confusingly similar to their figurative ADVICE mark, for which…

In the case D2019-2738, the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center addressed a dispute between In Loco Tecnologia da Informação S.A., a Brazilian technology company, and Dermot O’Halloran of ZZG Ltd, over the domain name “inloco.com”. In Loco, established in 2014, claimed rights in the “IN LOCO” mark, substantiated by several Brazilian trademark registrations. They contended…

In the WIPO Domain Name Dispute D2019-3088, Joelsson Media Group AB from Sweden filed a complaint against Domains By Proxy LLC and Mattias Kaneteg from the United States regarding the domain name “casinodaddy.com”. The complainant, operating under the name Casino Daddy since 2016, held European Union Trade Marks for “CASINO DADDY” and “CASINODADDY”. However, the…

The domain name dispute case DAU2019-0011 involved the complainant Ogio International Inc from the USA and the respondent Ogio Pty Ltd from Australia, concerning the domain name . The case was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center on April 5, 2019. The complainant argued that the disputed domain name was identical to their…

The WIPO domain name dispute case D2019-0755 involved the Complainant, Pet Plan Ltd, a UK-based company providing pet insurance services, and the Respondent, AD Burns from the USA. The disputed domain name was , registered by the Respondent. The Complainant argued that the domain name was confusingly similar to its PETPLAN trademark and that the…

The domain name dispute case D2019-1183, adjudicated under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), presents a noteworthy example of the complexities involved in domain name disputes, especially when considerations of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) come into play. The Nature of the Dispute In this case, the complainant held a trademark that they…

In the intricate landscape of domain name disputes, Case D2019-1584 presents a compelling narrative, illustrating the complexities and legal nuances inherent in such cases. This case, adjudicated under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), provides a valuable lens through which to understand the delicate balance between the rights of domain name holders and…

In the WIPO domain name dispute case D2018-0793, Compañía Logística de Hidrocarburos CLH S.A., a Spanish company, filed a complaint against Privacy Administrator, Anonymize, Inc. / Sam Dennis of Investments.org Inc, regarding the domain name “clh.com”. The Complainant alleged that the domain was identical to their trademark and that the Respondent had no rights or…