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…

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 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 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 domain name dispute case D2020-1119, adjudicated under the aegis of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the parties involved were AIRY GreenTech GmbH as the complainant and Privacydotlink Customer 3050720 / Samsu Sempena as the respondent. The decision in this case was rendered on July 3, 2020, by panelist Andrew D. S. Lothian.…

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) case number D2020-1786, decided on September 15, 2020, is a compelling example of domain name disputes involving allegations of reverse domain name hijacking (RDNH). The case revolved around the domain name “spase.com,” with the complainant being Sahil Gupta and the respondents being Michal Lichtman and Domain Admin, Mrs Jello,…

The WIPO Domain Name Dispute Case D2020-2480, decided on November 10, 2020, presents a complex scenario entangling business disputes and domain name rights. The case involved the domain name “innvectra.com” with M/s. Innvectra Softech Private Limited as the complainant and WhoisGuard Protected of WhoisGuard, Inc./Ravindrababu MV, Innvectra Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd. as the respondents. Background…

In the realm of intellectual property disputes, particularly those involving domain names, the case of D2020-3504, adjudicated by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), stands out for its complexity and the exploration of key issues related to domain name ownership and rights. This case revolved around the domain name “noo.com,” with the complainants being Elite…

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…