In the WIPO Case No. D2019-2489, Adventure SAS, a French company manufacturing and selling paramotors, paragliders, and trikes, filed a complaint against Mike Robinson of BlackHawk Paramotors USA Inc., concerning the domain name . The complaint was filed on October 10, 2019. Adventure SAS argued that the domain name was identical or confusingly similar to…

In the domain name dispute case D2019-2925, Universidad Privada De Madrid, S.A. (UNIVERSIDAD ALFONSO X EL SABIO -UAX), represented by Legal Things Abogados, Spain, filed a complaint against Vince Harasymiak of Domain Capital, United States. The case centered on the domain name “uax.com,” registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC. The complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration…

In the domain name dispute case D2019-3138, Nu Pagamentos S.A, a Brazilian company providing banking and financial services, filed a complaint against Dan Hudson, Nubank of the United States, over the domain name nubank.com. The complaint was filed on December 18, 2019, and the decision was made on February 14, 2020. Nu Pagamentos S.A claimed…

In the WIPO domain name dispute case DAU2019-0031, the complainant was Smartmark Pty Ltd, and the respondent was Robert Kaay. The disputed domain name was “smartmark.com.au.” The decision on this case was made by a panel consisting of Andrew F. Christie (Presiding), Alan L. Limbury, and John Swinson. The decision date was February 19, 2020.…

The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center’s decision on the domain name dispute case D2019-0263, Feev Holding B.V. v. Firas Dabboussi, involved the domain “feev.com.” Feev Holding B.V. from the Netherlands, represented by Mouritz Legal, filed a complaint against Firas Dabboussi of the United States, who was self-represented. The domain in question, registered since February 22,…

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…

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…

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 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 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…