Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here claimed unauthorized
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.
...
2025-11-24 - Case Details
In what concerns the use, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was used for fraud to
impersonate employees of the Complainant and disrupt its business. As such, two days after the disputed
domain name was registered it was used to send emails using the name of an employee of the Complainant.
...
2025-10-07 - Case Details
On September 29, 2025, Respondent wrote in part:
“To pursuant to Article WWE.VEGAS; We do hereby will counter sue and summons/extradite to the US
COURTS to be imprisoned for fraud and harassment Suspects: [Complainant’s counsel and the Center’s
case manager]/ A Cease and Desist or a violation of ICANN and the FTC [United States Federal Trade
Commission] will be brought up against you and the WIPO. ...
2025-11-10 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that:
(i) the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its LIEBHERR mark as it reproduces the mark with the
mere omission of one “r” and the addition of the descriptive term “group”;
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name for a number of
reasons, among which that, (1) the Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant and is not affiliated with the
Complainant in any way, (2) the Complainant has not granted any authorization for the Respondent to make use
of its LIEBHERR mark in a domain name or otherwise, (3) the Respondent is not commonly known by the
disputed domain name, (4) the registration of the disputed domain name with a minor misspelling of the
Complainant’s LIEBHERR mark combined with the generic term “group” is a classic case of typosquatting, (5)
the disputed domain name is configured with MX records pointing to an active mail system, which strongly
suggests use for email purposes, which creates a serious risk of phishing or fraud, (6) the disputed domain
name is configured with a 301 redirect to the Liebherr Group’s, from which the Complainant is a part of, official
website “www.liebherr.com”. ...
2025-11-07 - Case Details
page 2
Notably, the Complainant contends that:
(i) the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its LIEBHERR mark as it reproduces the mark with the
mere omission of one “r” and the addition of the descriptive term “group”;
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name for a number of
reasons, among which that: (1) the Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant and is not affiliated with the
Complainant in any way, (2) the Complainant has not granted any authorization to the Respondent to make use
of its LIEBHERR mark in a domain name or otherwise, (3) the Respondent is not commonly known by the
disputed domain name, (4) the registration of the disputed domain name with a minor misspelling of the
Complainant’s LIEBHERR mark combined with the generic term “group” is a classic case of typosquatting, (5)
the disputed domain name is configured with MX records pointing to an active mail system, which strongly
suggests use for email purposes, which creates a serious risk of phishing or fraud, (6) the disputed domain
name is configured with a 301 redirection to the Liebherr Group’s, including the Complainant’s, official website at
“www.liebherr.com”. ...
2025-11-06 - Case Details
Panels have held that the use of a
domain name for illegitimate activity (e.g., 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.
...
2025-11-05 - Case Details
“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.” WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. ...
2025-06-17 - Case Details
Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here, claimed as applicable to this
case: phishing, 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.
...
2025-12-01 - Case Details
case=D2022-0397
page 5
Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate 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.
...
2025-10-20 - Case Details
The Respondent asserts not to
be engaged in any illegal activity, as passing off, impersonation or fraud, and that the Complainant has not
proved that the Respondent’s platform is a scam, as the Complainant allegation is based on a publication
that contains a standard disclaimer located in the footer of the crowdfunding platform Republic
(), which is displayed uniformly across all projects listed on the platform: this
disclaimer is not evidence of any issue specific to Darqube Ltd, but instead it is a legally required risk
disclosure intended to inform investors of the general risks relating to startup investment.
...
2025-10-16 - Case Details
Panels have
held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here fraud, sale of counterfeit goods and
impersonation/passing off, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 3.1.4 and 3.4.
...
2025-10-16 - Case Details
Panels have
held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here fraud, sale of counterfeit goods and
impersonation/passing off, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 3.1.4 and 3.4.
...
2025-10-16 - Case Details
Indeed, panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g.,
the sale of counterfeit goods or illegal pharmaceuticals, phishing, distributing malware, unauthorized account
access/hacking, 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.
...
2025-06-27 - Case Details
The Complainant also alleges that the Respondent’s website is a “scam”, that the Respondent does not
deliver products as ordered and that the Respondent is engaged in fraud. These are serious allegations.
The Complainant provided no evidence to support these allegations.
...
2025-06-25 - Case Details
UDRP panels have categorically held that the use
of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g. 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.
...
2025-08-20 - Case Details
Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, such as passing off, or other types of
fraud, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds
Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitute bad faith under the Policy.
...
2025-07-21 - Case Details
The Complainant is a leading provider of information and solutions used in payroll-related and
human resource management business services in the US, as well as e-commerce fraud and charge back
protection services in North America. The Complainant operates in four global regions, namely, North
America, Asia Pacific, Europe, and Latin America. ...
2025-08-05 - Case Details
Panels have categorically held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., the sale
of counterfeit goods or illegal pharmaceuticals, phishing, distributing malware, unauthorized account
access/hacking, impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests
on a respondent.
Following a takedown performed by the Complainant, the disputed domain name now resolves to a blank page
that lacks content. ...
2025-07-04 - Case Details
Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, such as phishing,
impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4.
Under these circumstances, the Panel considers it likely that the Respondent intended to use the disputed
domain names as a support for a potential fraudulent scheme, namely to impersonate the Complainant, and
extract personal or financial data or login credentials from Internet users visiting his website. ...
2025-06-30 - Case Details
This is unusual in selecting a “.com” domain
name, which is normally intended for the public, not internal use, and raises the suspicion that the
Respondent meant to emulate the Complainant in phishing emails or some other fraud scheme, if not
through an imitative website. Any domain name meant for “internal” use is more likely to entail login
credentials that, if divulged or captured, could compromise the operator’s server or network. ...
2024-09-02 - Case Details