Author: Staff

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) case D2018-0033 is a remarkable instance in the realm of domain name disputes, highlighting the intricacies of intellectual property rights and the challenges in proving ownership and bad faith registration. This case involved Brentwood Holding Group Inc., the complainant, and Raphael Nikolai Necesito, the respondent, with the disputed domain…

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) case D2018-0402 is a significant example of domain name dispute resolution involving allegations of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH). This case, involving the domain names related to the Sandos brand of hotels and resorts, presents a complex interaction between trademark rights and domain name usage. The decision was rendered…

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) case D2018-0535 offers a compelling insight into domain name disputes and the concept of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH). The dispute centered around the domain name “proeza.com,” which was contested by the Mexican corporation Proeza, S.A. de C.V. (“Complainant”), against the domain’s registrant (“Respondent”). The case was concluded with…

The WIPO domain name dispute case D2016-0102 involved Rack’ n Stack Warehouse (Admin) Pty Ltd as the complainant and Chris Carrol, The Rack N’ Stack Warehouse SEQLD as the respondent, concerning the domain name . The case was complex due to the intertwined business histories of the complainant and respondent, both of whom purchased parts…

The WIPO domain name dispute case D2016-0872 involved a complaint filed by Tip Vy Spots LLC Vy against the respondent, Super Privacy Service c/o Dynadot, over the domain name . The complainant, Tip Vy Spots LLC Vy, based in the United States, was represented by Scherrer Patent & Trademark Law, P.C., while the respondent, also…

The domain name dispute case D2016-2598 involved Central Media S.C., a Mexican company, as the complainant, and Valentin Lotrean, from Australia, as the respondent. The disputed domain name was . Central Media S.C. argued that the domain name was identical to its trademark and that Lotrean had no legitimate interest in it. However, the domain…

In the domain name dispute case D2017-0650, the central issue revolved around the domain name . This case was particularly noteworthy due to the finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH). The dispute involved complex arguments about trademark rights, legitimate interests, and the criteria for bad faith in domain registration and use. Parties Involved Complainant:…

The domain name dispute case of Normann Copenhagen ApS v. Peter Normann, with the case number D2017-0829, was a notable instance involving a claim of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH). Background of the Case Complainant: Normann Copenhagen ApS, a leading Danish design firm established in 1999, held several registrations for the trademark NORMANN COPENHAGEN and…

The WIPO domain name dispute case D2000-1202 involved a specific domain name, with the complainant and respondent engaging in a legal battle over its ownership and use. The case was adjudicated under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), a policy developed by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to resolve…

The WIPO domain name dispute case D2006-0609 involved the domain name “dreamgirls.com”. The complainant in this case was Dreamgirls, Inc., and the respondent was Dreamgirls Entertainment. The panel, consisting of David H. Bernstein (Presiding), M. Scott Donahey, and Jonathan Hudis, made the decision on August 10, 2006. The complaint was denied, indicating that the panel…