Case No Domain(s) Complainant Respondent Ruleset Status
Hassan Shams Private Registration / UDRP CLAIM DENIED


  • telepathy 06:30 am 23-Dec-2016
    Seems like this unjustified refiling would have been deserving of a RDNH finding, similar to and (source:
  • worldepay 01:46 am 02-Feb-2017
    To whom it may concern,
    There are also no forward or backward links to, we are not passing ourselves off as, and are not interested in doing so. when people ask me what is the name of my payment site I DON'T say I SAY WORLDEPAY.CO , i often have to say it 3 or 4 times, they say never hear of it, no-one has ever said are you, this is a FISHING exercise I see that in this regard worldpay LTD has made this an exercise to do this to many domain name holders some are using it to connect to their site we are not one of them and at no time when I purchased this domain name did I think WOW , this sounds like lets buy it, I purchased because it is what we do we are a world payment system in the e-commerce market , we are currently developing a shop and this site was being developed long before I was aware of the complaint. this site being SIMILAR in name is NOT the same and does not even rate a mention in our market we are primarily High risk and alternative High-risk . All this is just a coincidence and there was no intention to do any of what is leveled against us by the complainant. didn't even come up on our radar. My understanding is that we have in NO way breached this act and or the legal requirements for 1) passing ourselves off as them (see recently added disclaimer on this is not an omission of guild but merely a way to prove that our intention is not and never will be to pass ourselves off as
    2) For example, in TTT Moneycorp Limited v. Guiying Huang, D2016-2030 (WIPO December 1, 2016) () Complainant is a financial institution that issues (among other services) credit cards. The accused domain name mimics complainant’s by the addition of a single letter “s.” There are of course situations where the addition of a single letter (or omission of one) can be lawful but not where the resolving website is found to be “a typical parking website, providing links to websites of the Complainant’s competitors and generating revenues by means of a PPC mechanism.”
    we are doing none of the above ! There is no evidence of the above (2).

    There the conclusion can be an alleged anti competitive measure or just a way to get rid of possible competition.

    Gregory Murray

Leave a comment

Log in or create an account