Category: RDNH

The WIPO Domain Name Dispute Case D2020-0811 involved the domain “gen.com”. The complainant, Agencias Universales S.A., filed a complaint against the respondent, Perfect Privacy / Jeff Williams. The decision in this case, made on June 26, 2020, by panelist Adam Taylor, denied the complaint. In this case, the complainant contended that the domain name was…

In the WIPO Domain Name Dispute Case DAU2020-0016, the complainant was Keep Australia Beautiful National Association Ltd, and the respondents were Community projects Queensland Ltd (formerly Keep Queensland Beautiful) and Keep Australia Beautiful Council QLD Inc. The case, decided on October 21, 2020, by panelist John Swinson, involved the domain names “keepaustraliabeautiful.org.au” and “tidytowns.com.au”. The…

The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center’s decision in the case of Crestron Electronics, Inc. v. ATTN: crestronasia.com, Domain Discreet Privacy Service / Transtrade Hong Kong Co. Limited, Case No. D2017-0777, is a notable example of a domain name dispute involving allegations of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH). The case involved the domain names crestronasia.com, crestronasia.asia,…

In the domain name dispute case Skyline Communications NV v. WebMagic Staff, WebMagic Ventures LLC, Case No. D2016-1667, the crux of the matter revolved around the domain name “dataminer.com.” The complainant, Skyline Communications NV of Belgium, sought the transfer of the domain name, claiming it was identical to their trademark “DATAMINER.” However, the respondent, WebMagic…

In the WIPO domain name dispute case D2016-0773, Starpixel Marketing LLC, doing business as Vape Magazine, filed a complaint against Geoffrey Stonham over the domain name . The Complainant alleged trademark rights to “VAPE MAGAZINE” and claimed the domain name was identical to their mark. However, the Panel found that the Complainant had not established…

The WIPO domain name dispute case D2015-2263 involved Grupo Milano, S.A. de C.V. from Mexico, against PrivacyGuardian.org / 3 Mings LLC (Ming K Chow). The disputed domain name was . Grupo Milano claimed rights to the “MILANO” mark, asserting that the domain was identical to their trademark and that the respondent had no legitimate interests…

The WIPO domain name dispute case D2013-1656 involved a conflict over the domain name between Aero Club of New Delhi, India, and Domain Admin – DomainGrabber.com of Dallas, Texas, USA. The domain name was registered in 1999 and connected to a parking page with advertising links. Aero Club, operating under the “Woodland” brand, contended that…

The WIPO domain name dispute case D2012-1193 involved the domain name . The complainant, Wall-Street.com, LLC from Florida, USA, contended that the domain name was confusingly similar to its trademark WALL-STREET.COM. The respondents included Marcus Kocak of Denmark, Internet Opportunity Entertainment (Sports) Limited of Antigua and Barbuda, and Sportingbet PLC of the UK. Wall-Street.com, LLC,…

The WIPO domain name dispute case D2012-0403 involved Dextra Asia Co., Ltd., based in Bangkok, Thailand, and Lakeside Enterprises Limited of Victoria, Mahe, Seychelles. The disputed domain name was . Dextra Asia, a manufacturer and supplier of construction products, held trademark rights for ‘DEXTRA’ and claimed that the domain name was identical to their trademark.…

The WIPO domain name dispute case D2011-0734 involved the Brazilian evangelical publishing house Graça Artes Gráficas E Editora Ltda. and Domain Amin of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The disputed domain name was . Graça Artes Gráficas claimed the domain name was identical to its registered trademarks and alleged that Domain Amin had no rights to…