The Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names wholly incorporating the Complainant’s trademark is, in the Panel’s view, indicative of bad faith, since the disputed domain names resolve to websites relating to the same activities as the Complainant’s website.
As mentioned in Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Alexander Ochkin,
WIPO Case No. D2017-0334:
“It is clear in the Panel’s view that in the mind of an Internet user, the disputed domain names could be directly associated with the Complainant’s trademark, which is likely to be confusing to the public as suggesting either an operation of the Complainant or one associated with or endorsed by it (see AT&T Corp. v. ...
2020-04-24 - Case Details
This shows a clear intention of impersonation, trying to make Internet users believe that the website is an official site of the Complainant.
As mentioned in Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Alexander Ochki,
WIPO Case No. D2017-0334:
“It is clear in the Panel’s view that in the mind of an Internet user, the disputed domain names could be directly associated with the Complainant’s trademark, which is likely to be confusing to the public as suggesting either an operation of the Complainant or one associated with or endorsed by it (see AT&T Corp. v. ...
2020-01-22 - Case Details
It plainly has rights in those words as
1 For example:
Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Transfer Service, Sedo.com, LLC, WIPO Case No. D2018-2510 : “In the Panel’s opinion, the fact
that the website operated under the disputed domain name has in the past been used in connection with an attempt to infect internet
users’ computers with viruses or malware, giving rise to a legitimate concern on the part of the Complainant that future use of the
disputed domain name could result in serious economic damage to the Complainant’s reputation. ...
2022-05-31 - Case Details
Likewise,
the Disputed Domain Name’s redirection to an adult content website is never considered a fair or bona fide
use of a domain name. See, e.g., Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Protection of Private Person /
Aleksandr Katkov, WIPO Case No. D2017-0381 (finding the respondent’s use of the domain name
to redirect Internet users to pornographic websites “should and could not be
considered a bona fide offering of goods or services”); see also Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. shilin Li¸
WIPO Case No. ...
2022-11-01 - Case Details
The Panel finally notes that Respondent is a systematic cybersquatter who has been found to have registered and used domain names in bad faith in multiple other cases under the Policy, which suggests a pattern of such conduct on the part of Respondent (see, inter alia, Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / I S, ICS INC,
WIPO Case No. ...
2019-01-16 - Case Details
The hyphen “-” which is added in the Domain Name does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity as it is non-distinctive (BHP Billiton Innovation Pty Ltd v. Oloyi,
WIPO Case No. D2017-0284; Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. 1&1 Internet Inc / David Grandpierre,
WIPO Case No. D2018-2237; WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8).
...
2020-02-28 - Case Details
The WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3, describes the circumstances under which the passive holding of a domain will be considered to be a bad faith use: “While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put”. See Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Armando Machado,
WIPO Case No. ...
2020-04-21 - Case Details
Domain May Be For Sale, Check afternic.com, Domain Registries Foundation,
WIPO Case No. D2018-1669; Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Whois Foundation, Domain May be For Sale, Check Afternic.com Domain Admin,
WIPO Case No. ...
2020-01-16 - Case Details
The word “uk” and the hyphen “-“ which are added in the Domain Name do not avoid a finding of confusing similarity (BHP Billiton Innovation Pty Ltd v. Oloyi,
WIPO Case No. D2017-0284, Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. 1&1 Internet Inc / David Grandpierre,
WIPO Case No. D2018-2237, WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8).
...
2019-12-26 - Case Details
The Panel further finds that the Domain Name is identical to Complainant’s WESTPAC Mark, incorporating the WESTPAC Mark in its entirety. See Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. DomainAdministrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org / JonasKropf,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-05-31 - Case Details
Additionally, redirection to pornographic websites is never
considered a fair or bona fide use of a domain name. See, e.g., Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v.
Protection of Private Person / Aleksandr Katkov, WIPO Case No. D2017-0381 (finding the respondent’s use
of the domain name to redirect Internet users to pornographic websites “should and
could not be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services”); see also Bayerische Motoren Werke AG
v. shilin Li¸ WIPO Case No. ...
2022-08-31 - Case Details
Further, it is clear that the use for apparent malware
distribution is in bad faith (see, for example, Euroview Enterprises LLC v. Jinsu Kim, WIPO Case No.
D2016-1124; Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Transfer Service, Sedo.com, LLC., WIPO Case No.
D2018-2510).
The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the third and final element of the Policy.
7. ...
2022-06-08 - Case Details
The use of a trademark in a domain name in which letters have been omitted, added, inverted, or substituted
is commonly known as “typosquatting” and does not negate the confusingly similar aspects of the domain
name pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Registration
Private, Domains by Proxy, LLC / I S, ICS INC, WIPO Case No. ...
2022-11-25 - Case Details
Use of a domain name for purposes such as phishing, if the allegations are accepted as true, constitutes bad faith use (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4) and further evidences bad faith (Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Transfer Service, Sedo.com, LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2018-2510).
Under these circumstances and on this record, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith.
...
2021-10-18 - Case Details
The addition of
the term “logistique”, the hyphen, and the gTLD “.com” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity with
the Trademarks (see sections 1.8 and 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and Andrey Ternovskiy dba
Chatroulette v. On behalf of chatroulettede.com OWNER, c/o whoisproxy.com / Domain Admin, High Tech
Investments LTD, WIPO Case No. ...
2023-02-13 - Case Details
The website at “www.mostedwanted.nu” displays links to various other sites, including commercial third-party websites offering adult content and a phone number for adult escort services.
2 Many other panels have similarly found that the unauthorized use of identical or confusingly similar domain names to direct users to pornographic websites supports a finding of bad faith and precludes finding legitimate rights and interests under the Policy. E.g., Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Protection of Private Person / Aleksandr Katkov,
WIPO Case No. D2017-0381(respondent’s use of domain name to redirect Internet users to pornographic websites “should and could not be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services”); Prada S.A. v. ...
2018-05-22 - Case Details
According to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, registration or use of a domain name will be considered in bad
faith when:
“by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to
your web site or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to
the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on
your web site or location.”
As mentioned in Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Alexander Ochkin, WIPO Case No. D2017-0334:
“It is clear in the Panel’s view that in the mind of an Internet user, the disputed domain names could be
directly associated with the Complainant’s trademark, which is likely to be confusing to the public as
suggesting either an operation of the Complainant or one associated with or endorsed by it (see AT&T Corp.
...
2025-01-20 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has engaged in pattern of registering domain names
including the trademarks of well-known brands. It cites, for example, Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v.
Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org / Zhichao Yang, WIPO Case No. ...
2024-12-19 - Case Details
The Panel finds that this use of the confusingly similar disputed domain names for pay-per-click linkage is an intentional attempt by the Respondent to gain commercially by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website, and thus exemplifies bad faith registration and use of those names per Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv). See Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Admin Mabinc, Mab Inc,
WIPO Case No. D2018-0806 (“The other disputed domain names resolve to a landing page with PPC links, some of which resolve to sites that compete directly with the Complainant’s website. . .In each scenario, these facts satisfy the requirements of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.”); and Autodesk Inc. v. ...
2018-07-25 - Case Details
PrivacyProtect.org / Li Jing, Wang Jianguo, and Yang Yan,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0016, regarding and Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. 1&1 Internet Limited,
WIPO Case No. D2017-0266 regarding .
...
2018-10-15 - Case Details