The Panel understands that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, claimed as phishing and
impersonation, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0,
section 2.13.1.
...
2024-03-14 - Case Details
”
- The fact that a DNS server was conf igured increases the risk of phishing activities.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
...
2024-05-16 - Case Details
Moreover, in these circumstances,
there is a significant risk the disputed domain name may be used for phishing or other fraudulent purposes.
The use of the disputed domain name indicates that the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for
commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s
mark. ...
2025-01-14 - Case Details
Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here possible phishing of the
Complainant’s clients, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record,
the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith
under the Policy.
...
2024-07-18 - Case Details
Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, such as impersonation/passing off, or
phishing or other types of fraud, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4.
Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain
name constitutes bad faith under the Policy.
...
2024-07-01 - Case Details
Le Requérant ajoute que le nom de domaine litigieux fait peser sur le
Requérant une menace de pratique frauduleuse du type phishing (hameçonnage).
B. Défendeur
Le Défendeur n’a pas répondu aux arguments du Requérant.
...
2022-09-09 - Case Details
Little is known about the Respondent who did not answer the Complaint, but who as set forth below is
accused of being involved in illegal phishing-type activities.
The disputed domain name was registered on July 9, 2024.
The disputed domain name does not currently resolve to an active website.
5. ...
2024-09-12 - Case Details
This means there is a heightened risk that the disputed domain name could be used to send phishing emails
to Edmond de Rothschild group clients or otherwise be used for other fraudulent purposes.
...
2024-12-11 - Case Details
By registering the disputed domain name with a slight misspelling of the Complainant’s well-known
mark, the Respondent is intentionally misleading consumers searching for the Complainant and is either
phishing for consumer information or otherwise defrauding consumers for commercial purposes. Moreover,
page 3
the Respondent labels the top of the webpage associated with the disputed domain name with the
Complainant’s word mark CENTERPOINT ENERGY and its registered logo, which constitutes trademark
infringement and underscores the Complainant’s bad faith use.
...
2024-11-05 - Case Details
Such actions have been a precursor in the past for emails to be sent to prospective or hopeful applicants for
employment with entities like the Complainant, using an email address intended to appear to be a legitimate
email address of the target company, with a view to phishing for personal information or other, unlawful,
activity. Using a domain name in connection with unlawful or fraudulent activities is manifestly considered
evidence of bad faith; see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4.
...
2025-01-31 - Case Details
The undisputed record here shows that Respondent registered the Domain Name and immediately started
using it to send fake emails designed to impersonate Complainant and perpetrate a phishing scam on
individuals who might be interested in applying for a job with Complainant. The scam included a request to
provide personal and financial information. ...
2024-12-30 - Case Details
Complainant
believes that it is more likely than not that the Domain Name has been registered to facilitate phishing or
other fraudulent activities, for example, by sending emails from addresses associated with the Domain
Name. ...Respondent was in the early stages of
preparing a legitimate business operation, and was building and testing mock-ups for use to further
discussions and formalize relationships in business structure and operations as a shared partnership.
Respondent also states there was no phishing or fraudulent activities undertaken, and no emails set up
relating to the Domain name. Respondent has suffered significant stress as result of the allegations against
him, and there has been significant disruption to his career, business partners and personal life due to the
confusion regarding the Domain Name. ...
2023-01-24 - Case Details
Complainants suggest that this evidenced that these Domain Names are being or have been used in connection with a phishing scam that sought to illegitimately collect the personal data or confidential account information of Instagram/Facebook users for commercial gain.
...The current or previous use of the Domain Names in connection with phishing scams will undoubtedly exclude any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Likewise, the use of the Domain Names to point to webpages either for resale of the Domain Name or with sponsored links cannot be considered as noncommercial. ...
2019-02-27 - Case Details
Because Respondent's website is misleading, Respondent may also use it in connection with various phishing and fraudulent activities.
Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith for the following reasons:
Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name that includes the dominant part of Complainant's registered mark CB & TRUST CALIFORNIA BANK & TRUST (with design) and the abbreviations for Complainant's other registered CB&T Marks.
...Because Respondent's website is accessed using the Disputed Domain Name which included Complainant's CB&T Mark, or the dominant part of or abbreviation for Complainant's registered CB&T Marks, the use of the Disputed Domain Name is misleading and Respondent may also use it in connection with various phishing and fraudulent activities.
Although in some cases the use of a domain name that resolves to a parking or landing page may be permissible, that is not the case in this matter where the links are to competitive products and services of Complainant. ...
2017-06-29 - Case Details
This has been held to amount to registration and use in bad faith”; and “the Respondent is using the disputed domain name for fraudulent email communications for receiving personal and financial information and gives the impression in these emails that the Respondent is associated with the Complainant. […]It is well known that ‘phishing’ is a form of Internet fraud that aims to steal valuable and sensitive information such as credit card numbers, passwords, etc. ...This has been held to amount to registration and use in bad faith”; And “the Respondent is using the disputed domain name for fraudulent email communications for receiving personal and financial information and gives the impression in these emails that the Respondent is associated with the Complainant. […] It is well known that “phishing” is a form of Internet fraud that aims to steal valuable and sensitive information such as credit card numbers, passwords, etc. ...
2016-09-01 - Case Details
The disputed domain names could be "an excellent way for scammers to practice phishing on consumers' prejudice". Accordingly, "if only for this reason of protection" the disputed domain names should be transferred to the Complainant.
...Finally, the Respondent objects strongly to the Complainant's assertion that it is using the disputed domain names as part of a phishing scam to attempt to obtain illicit revenues. The Respondent says that no evidence at all has been put forward to justify this claim. ...
2018-04-20 - Case Details
Los nombres de dominio en disputa son utilizados para redirigir a un sitio Web donde se ofrece la descarga de un archivo APK llamado "WhatsAppSpy", que puede utilizarse para hackear y espiar las cuentas de WhatsApp de otras personas, siendo probable que se trate de una estafa destinada a obtener los datos personales ("phishing") o difundir malware. Tampoco es conocido el Demandado por su marca, pues el término "whatsapp" se asocia exclusivamente con su empresa y su aplicación, ni los nombres de dominio en disputa se utilizan de forma no comercial o leal. ...Esta Experta entiende que tal uso no puede calificarse como legítimo a efectos del Reglamento ya que puede entrañar, en definitiva, de ser cierta la funcionalidad que se atribuye al archivo informático que se promociona, un medio para facilitar la realización de un acto presuntamente calificable como ilícito civil, contrario a la protección del honor, la intimidad y la propia imagen de las personas, e incluso puede, presuntamente, suponer un medio para la realización de un acto ilícito penal de piratería informática, como la obtención de datos personales de las personas que descarguen el mencionado archivo o de los usuarios de la aplicación WhastApp sometidos al mismo (phishing) o la descarga de software malicioso.
La Experta no entra a valorar por medio de la presente decisión si la realización de las funcionalidades que en su caso permitiría el archivo informático supone un ilícito civil o penal ya que dicha valoración excede de los fines del Reglamento. ...
2018-07-16 - Case Details
iii) Registered and used in bad faith
Complainant contends Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith, as evidenced by
deliberate targeting of its famous mark in the financial sector; its use of the Domain Name to host competing
PPC advertisements that create confusion and divert Internet traffic for commercial gain; the establishment
of MX (mail eXchanger) records associated with the Domain Name indicating potential preparation for
nefarious purposes such as phishing or fraudulent communications; and the recent timing of the registration
(January 5, 2025), long after Complainant’s mark became famous in the f inancial services marketplace.
...In addition, Respondent has established MX records associated with the Domain Name, indicating potential
preparation or actual use for nefarious purposes such as phishing schemes or f raudulent email
communications that could impersonate Complainant. Previous UDRP panels have recognized such
technical configurations as evidence of preparation for abusive use. ...
2025-05-16 - Case Details
Notably, the Respondent contends that:
- the disputed domain name is not identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark
because the disputed domain name consists of the distinct terms “plu” and “xee” as well as a dot/delimiter
and the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) suffix “top”, whereas the Complainant’s mark consists only of the word
PLUXEE;
page 3
- the disputed domain name is visually and phonetically distinct from the Complainant’s mark, given the
use of the two distinct terms plus the addition of the delimiter and TLD suffix;
- the Complainant has not registered the identical/confusingly similar term “pluxee.top” as a trade mark,
whereas it would not be feasible for the Respondent to register “pluxee” on its own as a domain name;
- the Respondent will only ever use the disputed domain name with the delimiter/suffix and so it will
never be confused with the term “pluxee” alone;
- the Respondent possesses legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because it is 100 percent
generic;
- the term “plu” appears in Wiktionary with different meanings in various languages including in English
as a symbol/abbreviation for Palikur (a tribal language spoken in French Guiana and Brazil);
- the term “xee” features in Wiktionary as a verb in Galician and a pronoun (“I”/“me”) in a South
American language Myba Guarani;
- Wiktionary also includes entries for “.” and “top” in multiple languages, meaning “best”/“highest” in
English, amongst other things;
- there is no law which forbids combination of words from different languages and no one needs to
understand exactly why the words are combined – this is a common practice nowadays and should be
respected;
- the Respondent is an investor and entitled to invest in such a digital asset, and the Respondent did so
because someone in the world might like to use it, like the Respondent, in a way that does not infringe the
Complainant’s trade marks;
- the fact that the Complainant’s trade mark states that the words in the mark have no meaning shows
that the Complainant is unaware that the term is also a character set consisting of two dictionary words,
“plu” and “xee”, with many meanings and which the Respondent is entitled to use in a domain name so long
as it does not infringe the Complainant’s trade marks;
- the Complainant’s website says that “plux” stands for positivity, the “x” symbolises the world of
opportunities and “ee” represents “employee engagement” – which the Respondent fully respects, but is
clearly different to the way that the Respondent uses the disputed domain name, as clearly stated on the
Respondent’s Dynadot offer page;
- the disputed domain name has not been registered and is not being used in bad faith;
- the disputed domain name is being offered for sale to everyone, not specifically the Complainant or its
competitors;
- the price sought for the disputed domain name is a matter for the Respondent and it is irrelevant that
the Complainant thinks that the price is “excessively high”;
- many domain names, especially those which are 100 percent generic get sold for high prices;
- while the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant’s
rights in the PLUXEE trade mark, the Respondent’s description on the Dynadot offer page shows that the
Respondent did not register the disputed domain name to create confusion for illegitimate profit but instead
sought to create clarity as regards the Complainant’s trade mark – the description referred to the 100 percent
generic nature of the disputed domain name and prominently and explicitly distanced it, twice, from the
Complainant’s, and any other, trade mark, a fact not mentioned by the Complainant;
- contrary to the Complainant’s assertion, the Respondent considered that it did have legitimate
interests in the disputed domain name because it is 100 percent generic and would never be used to infringe
the Complainant’s trade marks;
- it is irrelevant the Respondent is located in Austria, where the Complainant has a trade mark, because
the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in Austria or in other countries where the
Complainant has a trade mark, but is simply offering it for sale;
- the Complainant does not seem concerned about the fact that many “pluxee” domain names are being
offered for sale by others, or are available for registration, or that an unrelated company appears to be using
, all of which shows that the Complainant particularly wants to acquire the Respondent’s “.top”
domain name;
- the Complainant was at fault for not registering the disputed domain name when it was available,
whereas many other large companies have registered the “.top” domain names corresponding to their trade
marks, indicating that the Complainant was not aware that its trade mark was 100 percent generic and that
“.top” is the ultimate and most valuable domain name – the Complainant cannot simply take the disputed
domain name away from the Respondent in those circumstances;
page 4
- the Respondent strongly denies that it acted fraudulently or that it needed authorisation by the
Complainant to register the disputed domain name;
- the fact that the Complainant has been the victim of phishing by other people is no reason to wrongly
portray the Respondent as a criminal, whereas it is the Complainant that has acted in bad faith and is guilty
of reverse domain name hijacking;
- the Respondent has been registering “.top” domain names for ten years and knows which domain
names it is permitted to register/own/use in a non-infringing way;
- to back up legitimacy of the disputed domain name, the Respondent has just rightfully registered and offered it for sale - this will be included for free with the disputed domain name;
- the Complainant’s own domain name, , reflects its explanation of its trade mark, whereas the
disputed domain name is a legitimate combination of two generic words and materially different from the
Complainant’s mark;
- the Respondent will never use the disputed domain name for a parked advertising page because the
Respondent wants to make clear that it has never used the disputed domain name, and to ensure that
everyone who visits the website at the disputed domain name sees the description on the Dynadot offer
page and that the Respondent’s only legitimate profit will derive from any sale of the disputed domain name
to people who can use it in a non-infringing way;
- even if the Complainant now registered “pluxee.top” as a trade mark, this could not be used to take the
earlier-registered disputed domain name from the Respondent;
- the disputed domain name could not be confused with the Complainant because the “.top” TLD suffix
is different from all of those used by the Complainant for its own domain names, which the public will realise
at the latest when they see the Respondent’s explanation on the Dynadot offer page; and
- the Complainant should cancel this proceeding and buy the disputed domain name at the listed price
instead as, if the Complainant loses this case as expected, then its current value will probably surge,
legitimately, to EUR 9,177,777.77.
...- That the fact that the Complainant has been the victim of “phishing” by other people is no reason to
portray the Respondent as criminal or fraudulent: Here, the Panel agrees with the Respondent and makes
no such finding...
2025-12-26 - Case Details
The Respondent adds that no confusion exists regarding affiliation or endorsement, and that the purpose of
the website(s) associated with the disputed domain names is educational and informational, in that they
provide detailed reporting on weak abuse procedures, phishing activity, and potential violations of ICANN’s
Registrar Accreditation Agreement, aiming to inform the public and enhance Internet security.
...The Respondent asserts that its use of the disputed domain names falls within the scope of paragraph
4(c)(iii) of the Policy, adding that its content is public interest reporting about the Complainant’s business
practices, including documented cases and tolerance of phishing and fraudulent activity which contributes to
public knowledge and awareness without commercial intent. ...
2026-03-19 - Case Details