Category: RDNH

In the WIPO case D2017-1293, Colussi S.p.A., a renowned Italian company in the bakery product industry, filed a complaint against Andrea Colussi, the cousin of the company’s current Chairman and a shareholder, over the domain name “colussi.com”. Colussi S.p.A. claimed that the domain was confusingly similar to their registered COLUSSI trademark and that Andrea Colussi…

In the WIPO case D2017-0842, the complainants FPT Industrie S.p.a. and REM Industrie S.r.l. filed a complaint against HugeDomains.Com over the domain name “fastmill.com”. The decision was made on July 7, 2017, by a panel consisting of The Hon Neil Brown K.C., José Carlos Erdozain, and Gabriela Kennedy (Presiding). The complaint was ultimately denied. This…

In WIPO Case D2017-0675, a domain name dispute was filed by the complainant against the respondent. The case involved a specific domain name which was under scrutiny for potential infringement of rights. The panelists, after thorough evaluation, concluded that the complainant’s claims were not substantiated as per the required criteria under the UDRP. Consequently, the…

In WIPO Case DAU2017-0039, a significant domain name dispute led to a decision of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH). The case centered around a specific domain name, with the complainant alleging rights infringement. However, the panel determined that the complaint lacked substantial grounds under the UDRP criteria. The denial of the complaint and the RDNH…

In the WIPO case D2016-0879, a notable domain name dispute and a decision of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) were made. The case involved a specific domain name, with the complainant alleging infringement of their rights. The panel, however, found the complainant’s claims unsubstantiated as per the UDRP criteria. The complaint was subsequently denied, and…

In WIPO Case D2016-0515, a domain name dispute led to a Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) decision. This case involved a specific domain name and a complainant who claimed infringement of their rights. However, the panel found that the complaint did not meet the necessary criteria under the UDRP and consequently denied it. The RDNH…

In WIPO Case D2015-1757, a domain name dispute involving a Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) decision was examined. This case involved a particular domain name, with the complainant alleging infringement of their rights. The panel assessed the situation against the UDRP criteria and concluded that the complaint did not satisfy the necessary standards. Consequently, the…

The dispute of D2019-0625 under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) presents a complex scenario involving the domain name “carcam.com”. This case stands out due to its conclusion with a Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) finding, highlighting the intricacies and potential pitfalls within domain name disputes. Background and Parties Involved The complainant in…

The WIPO Case D2010-0778, adjudicated on July 8, 2010, involved a domain name dispute between Genomatix Software GmbH and Intrexon Corporation. The contested domain name was “genomatix.com”. Genomatix Software GmbH, based in Munich, Germany, alleged that they had rights to the “GENOMATIX” mark and claimed that Intrexon Corporation, from Virginia, USA, had no legitimate interests…

In the WIPO Case D2009-1102, the dispute involved the domain name “bwired.com”. The complainant in this case was Bwired Pty Ltd, and the respondent was Eric Adem, associated with bWiredDomains. The decision for this case was made by panelist Jonathan Turner on October 16, 2009. The outcome of the case was the denial of the…