To the contrary, the evidence indicates that the Respondent intends to divert consumers from the Complainant’s Website for the purposes of perpetrating a fraud on those consumers and thereby tarnish the Complainant’s trademarks and depreciate the value of the goodwill and reputation of the Complainant.
...Chad Long on January 28, 2007, informing the Center that he had been a victim of computer/credit fraud and that he had no intention to dispute the Complaint. In the previous disputes referred to above, the respondents, Mr. ...
2008-02-25 - Case Details
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
Although the addition of other terms here, “fraud alert”, may bear on assessment of the second and third
elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity
between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity here, claimed as applicable to this case:
phishing, distributing malware, impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud can never confer rights or
legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.
...
2025-02-28 - Case Details
The Complainants further submitted evidence showing that the website is
associated with phishing and fraud activities including attempting to hack credit card accounts that are used
for payment on the website.
...The Complainants have produced evidence showing the disputed domain name and its email account is
associated with phishing and fraud activities, but the Respondent has not rebutted this allegation. Panels
have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity such as phishing and other types of fraud can
never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. ...
2025-02-18 - Case Details
On the contrary, “fraude” is descriptive and means in French “fraud”. Thus, the
disputed domain name is configured in such a way as to mislead Internet users into believing that it hosts a
Complainant site specifically designed to combat bank fraud.
...Panels have held that the
use of a domain name for illegitimate activity (here, likely phishing, or other types of fraud) can never confer
rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.
...
2025-04-22 - Case Details
It is noteworthy that, the Respondent’s website at the disputed domain name has resulted
in actual confusion and fraud; where an Internet user entered information and money on the Respondent’s
website mistaking it to be the Complainant’s website.
...Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity such as fraud, impersonation of the
complainant can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. ...
2025-05-06 - Case Details
On the contrary, as Complainant demonstrated, the Domain Name was used to create an email address
used in a fraud scheme. Use of a domain name for illegal activity can never confer rights or legitimate
interests on a respondent (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1).
...Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here, claimed impersonation/passing off,
or other types of fraud can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0,
section 2.13.1.
...
2025-01-24 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its AIRTEL trademark,
that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name, and that
the Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith to commit fraud. The
Complainant further contends that there is no bona fide use of the Disputed Domain Name by the
Respondent. ...It is also to be noted that the Respondent has been using the
Disputed Domain Name to perpetrate a fraud to extort money from innocent and unsuspecting consumers.
Panels have categorically held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., phishing,
impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a
respondent. ...
2024-09-04 - Case Details
To the contrary, the Respondent uses the Domain Name to capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the
page 3
Trademark, as it purposefully commits acts of fraud by sending emails from an email account using the
Domain Name.
Furthermore, the Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith. ...By doing so, the Respondent is purposely
committing acts of fraud. In accordance with section 2.13.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 the use of a domain
name for illegitimate activity, such as phishing or the impersonation off a complainant, can never confer
rights or legitimate interests on a respondent.
...
2022-09-05 - Case Details
This submission contained specific evidence that had just come to the Complainant’s attention of the alleged
fraudulent activities of the Respondent, including email chain evidence of the fraud. The Respondent had
the opportunity to respond in relation to the Complainant’s original allegation that the Respondent was using
the disputed domain name for a phishing scheme in order to fraudulently obtain payment of fake invoices but
failed to do so. ...The Complainant has submitted evidence that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to
impersonate an employee of the Complainant to perpetrate a financial fraud/phishing scam by soliciting
invoice payments from the Complainant’s clients or contacts. Fraudulent conduct is not consistent with the
Respondent having rights or bona fide or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as further
described under Part C below.
...
2022-08-15 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the Respondent’s activities are a clear case of
trademark infringement, fraud, and phishing.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
...Here, the disputed domain name is being used for email
fraud. Compare Insured Aircraft Title Service, LLC v. Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf /
Noah Josh, Sergio Manny, Karl Anderson, Eve Manesh, Regina Hank, Knight Carl, WIPO Case
No. ...
2023-06-22 - Case Details
The Complaint also included evidence that the disputed domain name has been used via the
WhatsApp messaging platform to impersonate employees of the Complainant in order to commit fraud.
Specifically, the Complainant was contacted by an individual located in India who had received
communications on the WhatsApp messaging service from someone posing as an employee of the
Complainant who was operating a phishing/hacking scam under the “Magna” name. ...The
Complainant also submits that the use of the disputed domain name is disruptive to the Complainant, as third
parties are likely to be confused into believing that the Respondent’s activities are affiliated with, or
sponsored by, the Complainant, when that is not the case. Given that the Respondent is engaged in fraud,
this is likely to be harmful to the Complainant’s goodwill. The Complainant submits that is clear that the
disputed domain name has been registered for the express purpose of carrying out fraud, and as part of an
intentional attempt to unlawfully attract commercial gain for the Respondent’s benefit.
...
2023-11-17 - Case Details
Furthermore, Complainant argues that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to perpetrate fraud cannot be considered a bona fide offering of goods and services.
Lastly, Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. ...Indeed, the use of a domain name for illegal activity, including phishing and fraud, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. See, e.g., Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. v. ...
2021-01-29 - Case Details
The Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name for the purpose of committing criminal activity and fraud and is thereby disrupting the business of the Complainant. Such use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services and demonstrates that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...The Complainant has also provided evidence demonstrating that the Disputed Domain Name has been used in connection with an attempted fraud that is similar to a phishing or fraudulent invoice scheme which employs the Disputed Domain Name in an attempt to imitate the Complainant and fraudulently obtain payments.
...
2020-12-30 - Case Details
@accceuture.com” email address is an attempt to pass itself off as the Complainant to the Complainant’s partners or customers for purposes of perpetuating financial fraud. The Complainant states that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. ...The Complainant argues that the Respondent has used the Domain Name to perpetuate financial fraud and to falsely obtain a financial gain from the Complainant’s third-party partner using the Domain Name. ...
2019-12-26 - Case Details
D2012-2498 (“Respondent’s exploitation of the Complainant’s trademark to perpetrate what appears to be a fraud on unsuspecting job applicants in particular and on Internet users in general demonstrates, in the view of this Panel, the Respondent’s bad faith”); Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. ...D2011-1030 (“The Respondent’s exploitation of the Complainant’s goodwill for financial gain by perpetrating what appears to be a fraud on unsuspecting job applicants demonstrates in the view of this Panel the Respondent’s bad faith.”); Travellers Exchange Corporation Limited v. ...
2013-05-16 - Case Details
The use of the Domain Name in order to perpetrate a fraud in which the Respondent offers financial services masquerading as the Complainant or one of its related companies does not and never could confer a right or legitimate interest on the Respondent.
...The Domain Name is being used to perpetrate an apparent financial fraud, in which the Respondent seeks to gain financially from masquerading as the Complainant or one of its related companies. ...
2014-03-27 - Case Details
It presently makes no use of the other disputed domain name .
The Replica Website is an instrument of fraud. It displays the VIRGIN GREEN FUND trade mark and is attempting to persuade Internet users that it is an official website of the Complainant. ...The Panel also accepts the Complainant's allegations of fraud concerning the Respondent's conduct through the use of the website under the disputed domain name .
...
2015-10-16 - Case Details
However, in a case such as this it is more convenient to consider those issues together.
6.11 The Panel accepts that each of the Domain Names has been registered and used with the intention of furthering a fraudulent scheme whereby the registrant has sought to impersonate an individual in the senior management of the Complainants in order to try and trick employees of the Complainants to make certain payments.
6.12 This sort of activity (commonly referred to as "CEO fraud", although in this particular case it was not the CEO who was being impersonated), was recently described by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland's National Fraud & Cyber Crime Reporting Centre as follows:
"CEO fraud will typically start with an email being sent from a fraudster to a member of staff in a company's finance department. ...The hope of the fraudster is that the recipient of that email will not notice these minor differences.
6.14 There is no right or legitimate interest in holding a domain name for the purpose of furtherance of a fraud through impersonation. Further, the registration and use of a domain name for such a purposes involves registration and use in bad faith (see, for example, Vestey Group Limited v. ...
2017-04-21 - Case Details
March 29, 2023 No active webpage
March 29, 2023
Fraud alert is displayed when attempting to access
the website.
April 15, 2023 No active webpage
April 13, 2023
Online shop reproducing the Complainant’s mark
and products.
... March 30, 2023 No active webpage
April 7, 2023
Fraud alert is displayed when attempting to access
the website.
March 29, 2023
Fraud alert is displayed when attempting to access
the website.
...
2023-11-13 - Case Details
Click fraud is the subject of some controversy and increasing litigation because the advertising networks are a key beneficiary of the fraud. Use of a computer to commit this type of Internet fraud is a felony in many jurisdictions, for example, as covered by Penal code 502 in California, United States. ...
2010-03-11 - Case Details