Accordingly, in view of Respondent’s attempts to pass itself off as Complainant in furtherance of its phishing scheme, the Panel concludes that Complainant has established the second element of the Policy.
...D2017-0368 (engaging in fraudulent email phishing activities through unauthorized use of a trademark for obtaining data or deriving information is construed as bad faith under the Policy). ...
2021-05-11 - Case Details
Branson or mirroring Complainant’s website respectively used as part of an email phishing scam, whereas resolved to a Google Safe Browsing webpage warning about phising. ...The Respondent uses the Domain Names as part of an email phishing scam. Phishing is clear evidence of bad faith.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. ...
2018-11-23 - Case Details
The evidence includes a May 27, 2022, email from “Security”
indicating that “[w]e have received an email from customer where they were targeted with a phishing
campaign using below email. This phishing email is using a Salesforce lookalike domain ‘salesforces-
inc.com.’ ...According to Complainant, Respondent uses the disputed domain name for phishing emails.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
B. Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. ...
2022-08-15 - Case Details
Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here potential phishing, can never confer
rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1.
...As far as use in bad faith is concerned, the disputed domain name resolves to a website flagged by browser
security features for potential phishing activities. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal
activity, here potential phishing, constitutes bad faith. ...
2026-02-25 - Case Details
The Respondent is not offering any goods or services
from the disputed domain name and rather sent phishing emails to solicit payments from the phishing target
while using the Complainant’s official domain name and WARTSILA logo; and (c) the disputed domain name
was registered and is being used in bad faith. ...Finally, as the above mentioned in 6.B, the Respondent has sent the phishing email to solicit payments from
the phishing target while using the Complainant’s official domain name and WARTSILA logo. ...
2025-02-25 - Case Details
Besides, the
disputed domain name has been used in a phishing scheme. Indeed, the Respondent attempted to pass off
as one of the Complainant’s employees.
...Use of a domain name for purposes of phishing or other fraudulent
activity constitutes solid evidence of bad faith use under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
...
2024-07-31 - Case Details
Complainant asserts that it filed a phishing abuse complaint with the domain name registrar, which complaint was granted and resulted in suspension of Respondent’s services associated with the Disputed Domain Name.
...Furthermore, Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a phishing/business email compromise attack is not, and cannot create, rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. ...
2021-02-03 - Case Details
D2017-0368 (engaging in fraudulent email phishing activities
through unauthorized use of a trademark for obtaining data or deriving information is construed as bad faith
under the Policy). As discussed above, Complainant has provided a phishing report from a client and
corresponding email from Respondent where Respondent used the disputed domain name as part of an
email phishing scheme in order to impersonate Complainant’s employees, and seek sensitive financial
information and divert payments from unsuspecting clients of Complainant.
...
2023-03-22 - Case Details
Further, “[p]anels have categorically held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., phishing…)
can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent.” WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. ...Therefore, while phishing is clearly evidence of bad faith (see, e.g., WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4), the
Panel is hesitant to find bad faith based solely on such allegation from Complainant.
...
2025-05-15 - Case Details
On
November 2, 2025, Complainant received a phishing notice from the Registrar via its web host, indicating
that the registrant had been told to cease phishing. ...D2022-4158. The use of a domain name for email phishing and
impersonation/passing off shows Respondent’s acts of bad faith and is not rebutted by Respondent.
...
2026-01-02 - Case Details
The Respondent uses the disputed domain name as part of a phishing scheme. The
phishing scheme uses the disputed domain name as its root to create the impression that an email is sent by
the human resources department of the Complainant in order to fraudulently induce recipients to provide
personal information. Such phishing scam cannot be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services
nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. ...
2026-04-30 - Case Details
Respondent registered the disputed domain
name just one day before its phishing attempt. As part of that phishing attempt, Respondent also utilized the
disputed domain name as email address, included in the phishing email. ...Helo Holdings LTD, WIPO Case No. DNL2010-0014: “Phishing activities pose a severe threat to customers,
trademark holders and third parties”. See also WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4.
...
2024-09-10 - Case Details
According to the Complainant, the
Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a “business email compromise” phishing
scam impersonating the Complainant or its related companies in an apparent attempt to engage in
fraudulent business transactions. ...Notably, the Complainant has provided evidence that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name
in connection with an email phishing scam which was calculated to impersonate the Complainant and to
defraud members of the public. ...
2023-04-21 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent is the CEO of Libraesva S.r.l., a company operating in the field of email security and
archiving solutionsand owning a phishing awareness platform called “PhishBrain”, at the website
www.phishbrain.net. The “PhishBrain” service consists of simulating phishing campaigns either via email or
SMS.
The Respondent states that the disputed domain name is used in the context of this phishing awareness
service, being one of the many domains that the companies that bought the PhishBrain service can choose
to send simulated phishing campaigns to their employees.
...
2022-09-07 - Case Details
The Respondents have used the disputed domain names for phishing campaign in order to send fraudulent
emails impersonating the Complainant and its employees, which appears to be a part of wider phishing
campaign organized by the Respondents. ...Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity here, claimed phishing and
impersonation/passing off, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. ...
2025-02-06 - Case Details
However, in this case, the use of the disputed domain name to send phishing emails in the name of Complainant is sufficient evidence of bad faith. The registration and use of a domain name (that is confusingly similar to another party’s trademark) for phishing, is evidence of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. ...This is apparent by the use to which Respondent has put the Domain Names, including as fake email addresses used in a fraudulent phishing scam attempted on at least one of Complainant’s suppliers. This phishing scam is clearly a fraudulent and bad faith use of the Domain Names.”). ...
2021-11-09 - Case Details
Furthermore, based on evidence provided by
Complainant demonstrating Respondent’s illicit email and LinkedIn phishing scheme, it is abundantly clear
that Complainant was intentionally selected and targeted by Respondent. ...D2017-0368 (engaging in fraudulent email
phishing activities through unauthorized use of a trademark for obtaining data or deriving information is
construed as bad faith under the Policy). ...
2023-07-20 - Case Details
Given what is said below in relation to bad faith, it is clear that the Domain Name was intended for and has
been likely used for phishing. UDRP Panels have categorically held that the use of a domain name for illegal
activity (e.g. phishing as in this case) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent (WIPO
Overview 3.0 at section 2.13). ...Both of those domain names have also been flagged by reputable, independent
security vendors for phishing. The Respondent is clearly a serial cybersquatter and this case is merely a
continuation of the Respondent’s modus operandi.
...
2022-10-07 - Case Details
Given what is stated in relation to bad faith below, it is more likely than not that the Domain Names have
been used for phishing. Panels have categorically held that use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g.,
phishing or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests (WIPO Overview 3.0 at
section 2.13.1). ...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Upon being notified of the Complaint, the Registrar wrote to the Center indicating that the Domain Names
would be suspended upon request given that the account holder for the Domain Names had engaged in
phishing previously. The Panel has independently established that the Domain Name has
been flagged for phishing by five independent security vendors, and the remaining two Domain Names have
each been flagged by one. ...
2023-04-13 - Case Details
According to Complainant:
“Days after Respondent registered the website, it began sending out phishing e-mails from e-mail accounts
associated with the Domain Name and posing as employees of First Trust. […] The phishing e-mail was
sent by [redacted]@firsttrustalarmservice.com, an impersonation of [redacted], the current Front Office
Supervisor for First Trust. […] Additionally, the phishing e-mails purported to copy the founder of First Trust,
, by including the fake e-mail address jbowman@firsttrustalarmservice.com. […] This phishing activity was
reported to the support team of the Registrar, Domain Silo, LLC and the Registrar placed the domain name
on hold on May 29, 2025.” […] The Domain Name can currently not be reached.”
Copies of the alleged phishing emails are annexed to the Complaint.
Respondent has not denied any of the foregoing allegations or disputed Complainant’s supporting evidence.
...
2025-09-05 - Case Details