{"id":1656,"date":"2018-01-31T09:28:38","date_gmt":"2018-01-31T08:28:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.bettinger.de\/?page_id=1656"},"modified":"2026-03-24T11:35:41","modified_gmt":"2026-03-24T10:35:41","slug":"liste","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.bettinger.de\/en\/infothek\/domainrecht-a-z\/uniform-domain-name-dispute-policy\/liste\/","title":{"rendered":"Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy &#8211; Liste"},"content":{"rendered":"<p class=\"bodytext\">Wie die mittlerweile mehr als 80.000 seit Inkrafttreten der UDRP am 1.12.1999 bei den Dispute Resolution Providern ergangenen Entscheidungen zeigen, hat sich die UDRP in der Rechtspraxis als wichtigstes au\u00dfergerichtliches Verfahren zu L\u00f6sung von Domainnamenskonflikten etabliert. Nachfolgend haben wir die UDRP-Verfahren aufgelistet, an denen wir als Schiedsrichter oder Parteivertreter beteiligt waren.<\/p>\n<p class=\"bodytext\">Einen \u00dcberblick \u00fcber die Verfahrensordnung und Entscheidungskriterien finden Sie unter in unserer Infothek unter dem Stichwort <a class=\"internal-link\" title=\"Opens internal link in current window\" href=\"https:\/\/www.bettinger.de\/infothek\/domainrecht-a-z\/uniform-domain-name-dispute-policy\/\">Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy<\/a>.<\/p>\n<div style=\"display: table;\">\n<div style=\"display: table-row;\">\n<div style=\"display: table-cell; width: 50%; background: #eeeeee; padding: 5px;\">\n<div class=\"csc-text\">\n<h5><strong>Beteiligung als Parteivertreter:<\/strong><\/h5>\n<ul class=\"bullet\">\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 11.03.2026<br \/>\nKion Group AG v. zeng shuyu<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2026-0314<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2026-0314\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2026-0314<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 26.02.2026<br \/>\nSennheiser electronic GmbH &amp; Co. KG v. Joyner Joyner<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2026-0045<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2026-0045\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2026-0045<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 23.01.2026<br \/>\nDegussa Holding AG v. klaus berg, Klaus Fritz, Heizendirekt, Daniel Schuller<br \/>\nDomain: u.a.<br \/>\nCase No.: D2025-4809<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2025-4809\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2025-4809<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 26.12.2025<br \/>\nDegussa Holding AG v. Daniel Schuller<br \/>\nDomain: u.a.<br \/>\nCase No.: D2025-4808<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2025-4808\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2025-4808<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 05.12.2025<br \/>\nKnorr-Bremse AG v. Michelle Laing, knorrs-bremse<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2025-4383<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2025-4383\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2025-4383<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 01.12.2025<br \/>\nSchaeffler Technologies AG &amp; Co. KG v. Richard migoas, gruppe-schaeffler<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2025-4215<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2025-4215\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2025-4215<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 28.11.2025<br \/>\nSchaeffler Technologies AG &amp; Co. KG v. Clark Richard, Badman enterprise<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2025-4194<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2025-4194\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2025-4194<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 20.11.2025<br \/>\nSennheiser electronic GmbH &amp; Co. KG v. Augustine Dominic, Dominic Augustine<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2025-3994<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2025-3994\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2025-3994<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 31.10.2025<br \/>\nGeorg Neumann GmbH v. userdc dger<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2025-3650<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2025-3650\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2025-3650<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 29.10.2025<br \/>\nSennheiser electronic GmbH &amp; Co. KG v. John Deecon, TrafficDomains Inc.<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2025-3676<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2025-3676\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2025-3676<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 27.10.2025<br \/>\nLiebherr-International AG v. jinunbunru, loadefikn hcndjcnenc<br \/>\nDomain: Case No.: D2025-3673<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2025-3673\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2025-3673<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 07.10.2025<br \/>\nLiebherr-International AG v. Jacqulyn Nastri<br \/>\nDomain: Case No.: D2025-3426<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2025-3426\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2025-3426<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 26.09.2025<br \/>\nKnorr-Bremse AG v. \u7b2a\u9896\u5e06 (Da Ying Fan)<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2025-3229<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2025-3229\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2025-3229<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 16.09.2025<br \/>\nKnorr-Bremse AG v. Brown Criuse, PRIMA INDO TUNA<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2025-2690<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2025-2690\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2025-2690<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 10.09.2025<br \/>\nDegussa Holding AG v. Klaus Fritz, Heizendirekt<br \/>\nDomain: u.a.<br \/>\nCase No.: D2025-2673<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2025-2673\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2025-2673<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 06.08.2025<br \/>\nRohde &amp; Schwarz GmbH &amp; Co. KG v. Denis Prus<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2025-2297<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2025-2297\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2025-2297<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 18.07.2025<br \/>\nDEUTZ AG v. mohammedreza heidari<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2025-2150<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2025-2150\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2025-2150<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 29.01.2025<br \/>\nKnorr-Bremse AG v. bunyamin korkmaz<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2024-5007<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2024-5007\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2024-5007<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 13.12.2024<br \/>\nSchaeffler Technologies AG &amp; Co. KG v. Lomakin Dmitrij Sergeevich, Dmitrij Sergeevich Lomakin<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2024-4441<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2024-4441\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2024-4441<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 11.12.2019<br \/>\nBaidu Online Network Technology (Beijing) Ltd. v. Wang Liang<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2019-2530<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/text\/2019\/d2019-2530.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2019-2530<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 05.11.2019<br \/>\nHazelden Betty Ford Foundation v. My Way Betty Ford Klinik GmbH &amp; Co. KG<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2019-2187<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2019-2187\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2019-2187<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 23.04.2019<br \/>\nGuangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd. \/ Realme Chongqing Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd. v. Rahul Kumawat<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2019-0478<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2019-0478\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2019-0478<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 19.11.2018<br \/>\nMerck KGaA v. Yasutaka Sakatani<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2018-1948<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/text\/2018\/d2018-1948.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2018-1948<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 01.10.2018<br \/>\nBaidu Online Network Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. v. Mi Ji Long<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2018-1690<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2018-1690\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2018-1690<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 11.07.2018<br \/>\nDeutsche Kreditbank AG v. Markus Stiefel, Alaka\u2019i Ventures UG (haftungsbeschr\u00e4nkt)<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2018-1154<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2018-1154\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2018-1154<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 08.05.2018<br \/>\nTencent Technology (Shenzhen) Co.Ltd. v. Super Privacy Service c\/o Dynadot<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2018-0391<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2018-0391\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2018-0391<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 10.04.2018<br \/>\nMerck KGaA v. Rylle Aldrin Mamuyac<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2018-0460<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2018-0460\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2018-0460<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 09.04.2018<br \/>\nBaidu Online Network Technology (Beijing) Corporation Limited v. Pierre-Olivier Brassard<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2018-0216<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2018-0216\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2018-0216<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 30.03.2018<br \/>\nMerck KGaA v. W. King<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2018-0077<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2018-0077\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2018-0077<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 04.02.2018<br \/>\nMerck KGaA v. Yang Xiao Yuan<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2017-2329<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/text\/2017\/d2017-2329.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2017-2329<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 04.10.2017<br \/>\nZ\u00fcnd Systemtechnik AG v. Antonio Ferrante, HITACS SL<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2017-1421<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2017-1421\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2017-1421<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 09.06.2017<br \/>\nZ\u00fcnd Systemtechnik AG v. Oscar Garcia, HITACS SL<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2017-0589<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2017-0589\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2017-0589<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 09.03.2017<br \/>\nBaidu Online Network Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. v. GuoJianguang (Guo Jianguang)<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2016-2592<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2016-2592\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2016-2592<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 08.03.2017<br \/>\nBaidu Online Network Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. v. Yang shoukang<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2016-2594<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2016-2594\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2016-2594<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 20.02.2017<br \/>\nBaidu Online Network Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. v. Li Chunhong<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2016-2490<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2016-2490\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2016-2490<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 11.02.2017<br \/>\nBaidu Online Network Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. v. guang zheng, zhengguang (Zheng Guang)<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2016-2504<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2016-2504\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2016-2504<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 07.02.2017<br \/>\nFreistaat Bayern v. Lahdo Algul<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2016-2521<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2016-2521\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2016-2521<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 31.01.2017<br \/>\nBaidu Online Network Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. v. Liu Hong Tao (\u5218\u6d2a\u6d9b)<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2016-2520<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2016-2520\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2016-2520<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 14.11.2016<br \/>\nStaedtler Mars GmbH &amp; Co. KG v. Suresh Jain<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2016-1918<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2016-1918\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2016-1918<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 16.01.2015<br \/>\nFotocom Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Anonyme v. PrivateName Services Inc. \/ Werner A. Krachtus, motiondrive AG<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2014-1769<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2014-1769\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2014-1769<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 24.02.2014<br \/>\nBundesverband Interaktiv Unterhaltungssoftware e.V v. admin<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2013-1925<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2013-1925\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2013-1925<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 03.12.2013<br \/>\nMBN GmbH v. Nicolas Feutrier<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2013-1628<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2013-1628\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2013-1628<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 28.08.2013<br \/>\nMerck KGaA v. Virginia Cross<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2013-1294<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2013-1294\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2013-1294<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 26.04.2013<br \/>\nPM-Portal GmbH v. Reinhold Burkhardt<br \/>\nDomain: Case No.: D2013-0264<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2013-0264\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2013-0264<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 27.10.2013<br \/>\na.n.d. Internet Services GmbH &amp; Co. KG v. Brian Whelan<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: DCO2013-0025<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=DCO2013-0025\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. DCO2013-0025<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 28.01.2013<br \/>\nEnercon GmbH v. Domain Admin, Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft \/ Domain Admin, PrivacyProtect.org<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2012-2368<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2012-2368\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2012-2368<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 17.12.2012<br \/>\nBayer AG v. Kaiden Shaun<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2012-2043<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2012-2043\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2012-2043<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 01.10.2012<br \/>\nMerck KGaA v. Moniker Privacy Services and APS Water Services Corp<br \/>\nDomain: u.a.<br \/>\nCase No.: D2012-1622<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2012-1622\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2012-1622<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 30.11.2012<br \/>\nTravel24.com AG v. Travel TV\/Travel24.tv Ltd.<br \/>\nDomain: Case No.: DTV2012-0011<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=DTV2012-0011\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. DTV2012-0011<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 13.10.2012<br \/>\nTUI AG v. Sado Dokmeci<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2012-1663<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2012-1663\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2012-1663<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 10.07.2012<br \/>\nMBN GmbH v. Yahiaoui Rachid<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2012-1031<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2012-1031\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2012-1031<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 25.02.2012<br \/>\nMerck KGaA v. yan xiansheng<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2011-2161<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2011-2161\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2011-2161<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 17.02.2012<br \/>\nLeica Geosystems AG v. Altair D\u2019Arcangelo<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2011-1922<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2011-1922\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2011-1922<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 21.09.2011<br \/>\nMerck KGaA v. c\/o whoisproxy.com Ltd \/ Galib Gahramanov, G Domains<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2011-1271<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2011-1271\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2011-1271<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 08.08.2011<br \/>\nMerck KGaA v. Pearline Henry<br \/>\nDomain: u.a.<br \/>\nCase No.: D2011-1013<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2011-1013\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2011-1013<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 27.07.2011<br \/>\nCarlsberg A\/S v. Personal \/ decohouse, decohouse<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2011-0972<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2011-0972\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2011-0972<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 18.07.2011<br \/>\nMerck KGaA v. Registrant Chen Yan Hua<br \/>\nDomain: u.a.<br \/>\nCase No.: D2011-1010<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2011-1010\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2011-1010<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 07.07.2011<br \/>\nCarlsberg A\/S v. Darius Katz<br \/>\nDomain: u.a.<br \/>\nCase No.: D2011-0852<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2011-0852\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2011-0852<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 11.03.2011<br \/>\nS. Staedtler GmbH &amp; Co. KG v. Edward Michalski<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: DCO2011-0007<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=DCO2011-0007\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. DCO2011-0007<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 10.11.2010<br \/>\nBayer Schering Pharma AG v. New World Express LLC<br \/>\nDomain: u.a.<br \/>\nCase No.: D2010-1387<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2010-1387\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2010-1387<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 28.09.2010<br \/>\nJappy GmbH v. Satoshi Shimoshita<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2010-1001<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2010-1001\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2010-1001<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 30.04.2010<br \/>\nBayer AG v. Okan Erdemir<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2010-0288<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/text\/2010\/d2010-0288.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2010-0288<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 28.04.2010<br \/>\nBayer Schering Pharma AG v. Knightleyinc<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2010-0352<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2010\/d2010-0352.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2010-0352<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 03.02.2010<br \/>\nBayer AG, Bayer Schering Pharma AG, Bayer Schering Pharma Oy v. Mihail Gordenco, Old Navy ltd.<br \/>\nDomain: u.a.<br \/>\nCase No.: D2009-1697<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2009\/d2009-1697.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2009-1697<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 03.02.2010<br \/>\nBayer AG, Bayer Schering Pharma AG v. ARanked\/Donald Allen, ARanked\/Duck Dawson, Martin V\/Donald Allen<br \/>\nDomain: u.a.<br \/>\nCase No.: D2009-1682<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2009\/d2009-1682.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2009-1682<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 29.01.2010<br \/>\nMerck KGaA v. The programmer adviser<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2009-1647<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2009\/d2009-1647.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2009-1647<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 30.10.2009<br \/>\nCorporaci\u00f3n Habanos S.A. v. Tobias Pischetsrieder<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2009-1041<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2009\/d2009-1041.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2009-1041<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 08.09.2009<br \/>\nBayer AG v. Ivan I Ivanov<br \/>\nDomain: u.a.<br \/>\nCase No.: D2009-0916<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2009\/d2009-0916.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2009-0916<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 05.08.2009<br \/>\nehotel AG v. Network Technologies Polska Jasinski Lutoborski Sp.J.<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2009-0785<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2009\/d2009-0785.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2009-0785<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 21.07.2009<br \/>\nFreistaat Bayern v. Jim van Dijk<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2009-0723<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2009\/d2009-0723.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2009-0723<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 22.06.2009<br \/>\nMerck KGaA v. Domains by Proxy Inc. \/ \u201c-\u201d<br \/>\nDomain: u.a.<br \/>\nCase No.: D2009-0511<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2009\/d2009-0511.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2009-0511<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 05.06.2009<br \/>\nBayer AG v. WebContents, Inc (www.webcontents.com)<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2009-0484<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2009\/d2009-0484.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2009-0484<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 20.03.2009<br \/>\nBayer AG c. Ideal Hobby Sagl<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: DCH2008-0031<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2008\/dch2008-0031.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. DCH2008-0031<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 21.08.2008<br \/>\nBayer AG v. Ronald Wells<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2008-1011<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2008\/d2008-1011.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2008-1011<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 06.12.2007<br \/>\nTUI AG v. igor golub<br \/>\nDomain: u.a.<br \/>\nCase No.: D2007-1410<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2007\/d2007-1410.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2007-1410<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 07.08.2007<br \/>\nBayer AG v. Globex International<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2007-0812<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2007\/d2007-0812.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2007-0812<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 03.04.2007<br \/>\nMerck KGaA v. JSJ Incheon<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2006-1541<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2006\/d2006-1541.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2006-1541<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 03.04.2007<br \/>\nMerck KGaA v. JSJ INCHEON<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2006-1596<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2006\/d2006-1596.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2006-1596<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 07.02.2007<br \/>\nPierre Balmain S.A. v. Brian Lola<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2006-1578<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2006\/d2006-1578.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2006-1578<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 31.01.2007<br \/>\nMerck KGaA v. Private Registration Service, NETNIC Private Registration Service<br \/>\nDomain: u.a.<br \/>\nCase No.: D2006-1433<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2006\/d2006-1433.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2006-1433<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 14.11.2006<br \/>\nBASF Aktiengesellschaf v. Geunhee Yun<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2006-1058<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2006\/d2006-1058.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2006-1058<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 05.07.2006<br \/>\nDZ Bank AG v. Bentz<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2006-0414<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2006\/d2006-0414.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2006-0414<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 10.10.2005<br \/>\nFreistaat Bayern v. Michael Kutzer<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2005-0839<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2005\/d2005-0839.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2005-0839<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 05.04.2004<br \/>\nFreistaat Bayern v. Tobias Binderberger<br \/>\nDomain: Case No.: D2004-0368<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2004\/d2004-0368.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2004-0368<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 04.09.2000<br \/>\nDG Bank AG v. Xuhui, Dai<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2000-0750<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2000\/d2000-0750.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2000-0750<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 03.07.2000<br \/>\nS\u00fcd-Chemie AG v. tonsil.com<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2000-0376<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2000\/d2000-0376.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2000-0376<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div style=\"display: table-cell; width: 50%; background: #dddddd; padding: 5px;\">\n<div class=\"csc-text\">\n<h5><strong>Beteiligung als Schiedsrichter:<\/strong><\/h5>\n<ul class=\"bullet\">\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 06.02.2026<br \/>\nIlia Inc. v. Yan Wenming<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2025-5353<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2025-5353\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2025-5353<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 16.01.2026<br \/>\nF\u00e9d\u00e9ration Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) v. Pongsagon Maswongsri<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2025-4751<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2025-4751\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2025-4751<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 02.01.2026<br \/>\nZoox, Inc. v. Kamau Vito<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2025-4542<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2025-4542\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2025-4542<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 05.11.2025<br \/>\nLinkedIn Corporation v. Milad Mehri, pinpoint<br \/>\nDomain: Case No.: DCO2025-0079<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/pdf\/2025\/dco2025-0079.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. DCO2025-0079<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 04.06.2025<br \/>\nMonster Energy Company v. Shared Inc, James Walker<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2025-1580<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2025-1580\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2025-1580<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 28.04.2025<br \/>\nSanofi v. Mannie Catinga, San Ofi Inc<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2025-0821<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2025-0821\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2025-0821<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 10.02.2025<br \/>\nLatham &amp; Watkins LLP v. ckdsaw<br \/>\nDomain: u.a.<br \/>\nCase No.: D2024-5133<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2024-5133\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2024-5133<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 06.12.2024<br \/>\nCarrefour SA v. Sophia<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: DCC2024-0031<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=DCC2024-0031\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. DCC2024-0031<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 30.08.2024<br \/>\nPhilip Morris Products S.A. v. Style Iqos, SYI<br \/>\nDomain: Case No.: D2024-2746<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2024-2746\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2024-2746<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 01.08.2024<br \/>\nMeta Platforms, Inc. v. mohammed shahin<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2024-2196<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2024-2196\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2024-2196<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 29.03.2024<br \/>\nBerluti v. Mjheu Khduw<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2024-0671<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2024-0671\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2024-0671<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 26.01.2024<br \/>\nAB Electrolux v. Antony Jhon, Electrolux Ink<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2023-4602<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2023-4602\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2023-4602<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 31.10.2023<br \/>\nFranke Technology and Trademark Ltd v. yangyang<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2023-3593<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2023-3593\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2023-3593<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 12.09.2023<br \/>\nNo Ordinary Designer Label Limited t\/a Ted Baker v. yanlu lu<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2023-2877<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2023-2877\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2023-2877<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 24.08.2023<br \/>\nTeva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Felix Rimele<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2023-2766<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2023-2766\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2023-2766<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 06.12.2022<br \/>\nWhite Stuff Limited v. \u4e3d\u5a1f \u96f7<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2022-3976<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2022-3976\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2022-3976<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 13.09.2022<br \/>\nNATIXIS v. WhoisSecure \/ Whois Privacy Protection Foundation, Hosting Concepts BV d\/b\/a Registrar.eu<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2022-2775<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2022-2775\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2022-2775<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 23.08.2022<br \/>\nShoe, S.L. v. Client Care, Web Commerce Communications Limited<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2022-2435<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2022-2435\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2022-2435<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 13.07.2022<br \/>\nStichting BDO v. Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf \/ lindy Georg<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2022-1531<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2022-1531\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2022-1531<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 26.12.2021<br \/>\nPacific House, LLC v. Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf \/ Connor Boyack<br \/>\nDomain: Case No.: D2021-3086<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/text\/2021\/d2021-3086.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2021-3086<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 12.08.2021<br \/>\nSpeck Pumpen Verkaufsgesellschaft GmbH v. gjung gong, bowmanconsulting<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2021-1976<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/text\/2021\/d2021-1976.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2021-1976<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 06.07.2021<br \/>\nFisher Asset Management LLC d\/b\/a Fisher Investments v. Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf \/ Kekek Pekek<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2021-1517<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/text\/2021\/d2021-1517.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2021-1517<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 07.06.2021<br \/>\nGovernment Employees Insurance Company v. lin yanxiao<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2021-1032<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/text\/2021\/d2021-1032.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2021-1032<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 03.06.2021<br \/>\nConforama France v. Benjamin Kouassi<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2021-1166<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/text\/2021\/d2021-1166.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2021-1166<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 15.05.2020<br \/>\nTriton Investco SARL and Triton Investment Management Limited v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1245360383 \/ STANZIONE<br \/>\nDomain: Case No.: D2020-0495<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/text\/2020\/d2020-0495.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2020-0495<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 11.05.2020<br \/>\nChannel Four Television Corporation v. Perfect Privacy, LLC \/ Nathan Synne<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2020-0564<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/text\/2020\/d2020-0564.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2020-0564<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 29.04.2020<br \/>\nVi\u00f1a San Pedro Tarapac\u00e1 S.A. v. Super Privacy Service LTD c\/o Dynadot<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2020-0546<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/text\/2020\/d2020-0546.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2020-0546<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 31.03.2020<br \/>\nAccor SA and SoLuxury HMC v. Comandante Matias Barbarroja, BedsBrokers<br \/>\nDomain: u.a.<br \/>\nCase No.: D2019-1750<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/text\/2019\/d2019-1750.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2019-1750<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 05.03.2020<br \/>\nSymphony Holdings Limited v. Jaimie Fuller, Fuller Consultancy F.Z.E.<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2019-2887<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2019-2887\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2019-2887<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 04.03.2020<br \/>\nDPDgroup International Services GmbH &amp; Co. KG v. Rene Freitag<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2019-3140<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/text\/2019\/d2019-3140.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2019-3140<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 19.12.2019<br \/>\nToyota Motor Sales, U.S.A. Inc. v. Domain Administrator, Fundacion Privacy Services LTD<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2019-2612<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2019-2612\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2019-2612<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 12.09.2019<br \/>\nComair Limited v. Privacy Protect, LLC \/ Domain Privacy Guard Sociedad Anonima Ltd.<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2019-1779<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2019-1779\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2019-1779<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 12.09.2019<br \/>\nComair Limited v. Dvlpmnt Marketing, Inc.<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2019-1721<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/text\/2019\/d2019-1721.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2019-1721<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 05.08.2019<br \/>\nBenefitfocus.com, Inc. v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC \/ Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2019-1258<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2019-1258\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2019-1258<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 20.05.2019<br \/>\nSanofi v. Margarita Pilan<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2019-0572<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/text\/2019\/d2019-0572.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2019-0572<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 14.05.2019<br \/>\nSanofi v. Pavel Bubnov<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2019-0579<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2019-0579\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2019-0579<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 14.05.2019<br \/>\nSanofi v. Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org \/ SEO, Erik Bilevic<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2019-0574<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/text\/2019\/d2019-0574.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2019-0574<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 09.08.2011<br \/>\nN.V. Torfs v. J Besselink Holding BV<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2011-1048<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2011-1048\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2011-1048<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 04.07.2011<br \/>\nChambre de Commerce et d&#8217;Industrie Franco-Indienne (CCIFI) v. ANEMRO, Peter Matovu Mwanje<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2011-0799<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2011-0799\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2011-0799<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 11.05.2011<br \/>\nToyo Tire &amp; Rubber Co. Ltd. v. Privacy Protect.org \/ Domain Tech Enterprises, Domain Administrator<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2011-0479<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2011-0479\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2011-0479<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 25.03.2011<br \/>\nKAIROS INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT SPA v. John Smith Company No. 54527 dba Kairosinvest Holdings Ltd.<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2011-0223<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2011-0223\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2011-0223<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 13.12.2010<br \/>\nRevlon Consumer Products Corporation, Mazda Motor of America, Inc. v. Rampe Purda<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2010-1778<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2010-1778\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2010-1778<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 05.10.2010<br \/>\nAulbach Lizenz AG v. Victorio Naturano<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2010-1394<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2010-1394\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2010-1394<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 04.08.2010<br \/>\nDecathlon v. Tents Direct<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2010-0993<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2010-0993\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2010-0993<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 18.06.2010<br \/>\nElite Licensing Company SA, and Elite Model Management v. Ruben Arcas Paterna<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2010-0653<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/text\/2010\/d2010-0653.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2010-0653<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 26.05.2010<br \/>\nRed Bull GmbH v. Reinhard Birnhuber<br \/>\nDomain: u.a.<br \/>\nCase No.: D2009-1598<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2009\/d2009-1598.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2009-1598<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 18.05.2010<br \/>\nRichemont Holdings AG v. Andy Bebe<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2010-0492<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/text\/2010\/d2010-0492.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2010-0492<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 19.03.2010<br \/>\nStorz &amp; Bickel GmbH &amp; Co. KG v. MSI Imports LLC, Adam Schoenfeld<br \/>\nDomain: u.a.<br \/>\nCase No.: D2009-1769<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2009\/d2009-1769.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2009-1769<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 08.03.2010<br \/>\nTrendbookstore GmbH v. Agoodo GmbH<br \/>\nDomain: Case No.: D2009-1621<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2009\/d2009-1621.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2009-1621<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 23.02.2010<br \/>\nBarcel\u00f3 Corporaci\u00f3n Empresarial, S.A (Barcel\u00f3 Group) v. Zapotel, Inc.<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2010-0083<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/text\/2010\/d2010-0083.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2010-0083<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 11.01.2010<br \/>\nSociete Francaise Du Radiotelephone &#8211; SFR v. Morel David<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2009-1563<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2009\/d2009-1563.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2009-1563<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 14.12.2009<br \/>\nIIC-INTERSPORT International Corporation GmbH v. Sportalm Salner<br \/>\nDomain: u.a.<br \/>\nCase No.: D2009-1306<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2009\/d2009-1306.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2009-1306<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 05.10.2009<br \/>\nP&amp;G Prestige Products, Inc. v. Ryogo Sugai<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2009-1098<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2009\/d2009-1098.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2009-1098<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 17.09.2009<br \/>\nBasic Trademark S.A. v. Ed Swain<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2009-1029<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2009\/d2009-1029.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2009-1029<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 04.06.2009<br \/>\nCompagnie Gervais Danone v. Whois privacy services provided by DomainProtect<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2009-0454<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2009\/d2009-0454.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2009-0454<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 16.04.2009<br \/>\nFormula One Licensing B.V. v. N\/A<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2009-0217<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2009\/d2009-0217.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2009-0217<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 12.02.2009<br \/>\nMobimate Ltd. v. \u201cWorld Mate\u201d and Sachiwo Inagaki<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2008-1867<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2008\/d2008-1867.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2008-1867<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 11.02.2009<br \/>\nUnited Parcel Service of America, Inc. v. upsgroundmap.com<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2008-1925<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2008\/d2008-1925.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2008-1925<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 03.02.2009<br \/>\nIVECO S.p.A. v. Zeppelin Trading Company Limited<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2008-1725<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2008\/d2008-1725.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2008-1725<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 12.01.2009<br \/>\nADITO Software GmbH v. Domain Admin, Mrs. Jello LLC<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2008-1771<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2008\/d2008-1771.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2008-1771<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 27.11.2008<br \/>\nSanofi-aventis v. Igor Peklov<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2008-1419<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2008\/d2008-1419.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2008-1419<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 30.09.2008<br \/>\nRUSTICAE SELECCI\u00d3N DE CALIDAD S.L. v. LAKSH INTERNET SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2008-1119<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2008\/d2008-1119.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2008-1119<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 20.08.2008<br \/>\nStanworth Development Limited v. Dr. Ricardo Vasquez<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2008-0943<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2008\/d2008-0943.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2008-0943<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 21.07.2008<br \/>\nAlstom v. LinkdotNet<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2008-0979<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2008\/d2008-0979.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2008-0979<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 07.07.2008<br \/>\neBay Inc. v. xu kefei (kefei xu)<br \/>\nDomain: u.a.<br \/>\nCase No.: D2008-0481<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2008\/d2008-0481.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2008-0481<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 14.03.2008<br \/>\nScania CV AB (Publ) v. ScaniaFinance.co.uk<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2008-0113<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2008\/d2008-0113.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2008-0113<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 05.03.2008<br \/>\nEugene Roshal v. Win Road Assistance Repairs Pvt. Ltd.<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2007-1768<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2007\/d2007-1768.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2007-1768<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 24.12.2007<br \/>\nMedizine LLC v. Mohammad Aburahmah<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2007-1517<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2007\/d2007-1517.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2007-1517<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 02.11.2007<br \/>\nDi-El Industrie-Electronic GmbH and TR Electronic v. E-Orderdesk<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2007-0961<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2007\/d2007-0961.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2007-0961<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 07.09.2007<br \/>\nStora Enso Oyj v. Ensolumber<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2007-0957<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2007\/d2007-0957.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2007-0957<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 07.08.2007<br \/>\nParrot S.A. v. Whois Service, Belize Domain WHOIS Service<br \/>\nDomain: Case No.: D2007-0779<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2007\/d2007-0779.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2007-0779<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 05.07.2007<br \/>\nLN-m\u00f6belhandels GmbH v. Edin Bektovic<br \/>\nDomain: &lt;m\u00f6max.com&gt;<br \/>\nCase No.: D2007-0298<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2007\/d2007-0298.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2007-0298<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 16.06.2007<br \/>\neBay Inc. v. Akram Mehmood<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: DAE2007-0001<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2007\/dae2007-0001.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. DAE2007-0001<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 16.04.2007<br \/>\nZurich Insurance Company and Zurich Insurance Company (UK Branch) v. First Zurich<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2006-1361<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2006\/d2006-1361.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2006-1361<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 31.12.2006<br \/>\nLancaster Vineyards Inc. v. Max Davidovich<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2006-1340<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2006\/d2006-1340.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2006-1340<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 17.11.2006<br \/>\nSprunk-Jansen A\/S v. Chesterton Holdings<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2006-1080<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2006\/d2006-1080.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2006-1080<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 31.10.2006<br \/>\nAbertis Infraestructuras, S.A. v. Syed Hussain (PDAPB)<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2006-1007<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2006\/d2006-1007.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2006-1007<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 15.09.2006<br \/>\nKijiji International Ltd. v. Fookin Ventures<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2006-0840<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2006\/d2006-0840.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2006-0840<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 12.09.2006<br \/>\nNeteller Plc. v. Prostoprom<br \/>\nDomain: u.a.<br \/>\nCase No.: D2006-0874<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2006\/d2006-0874.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2006-0874<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 24.06.2006<br \/>\nSilvie Tom\u010dalov\u00e1, a.k.a. Sylvia Saint v. Global Access<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2006-0399<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2006\/d2006-0399.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2006-0399<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 30.05.2006<br \/>\nLyonnaise de Banque v. Richard J.<br \/>\nDomain: Case No.: D2006-0142<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2006\/d2006-0142.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2006-0142<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 28.05.2006<br \/>\nF. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A.<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2006-0451<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2006\/d2006-0451.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2006-0451<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 27.05.2006<br \/>\nGovernment of the Province of Alberta v. RolloverNow, Inc.<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2006-0163<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2006\/d2006-0163.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2006-0163<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 24.05.2006<br \/>\nOfficial Site Hotel Ltd. v. 1001 Web Promotions<br \/>\nDomain: u.a.<br \/>\nCase No.: D2006-0322<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2006\/d2006-0322.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2006-0322<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 22.04.2006<br \/>\nF. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Fred<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2006-0246<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2006\/d2006-0246.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2006-0246<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 21.04.2006<br \/>\nF. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Brito Meyer<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2006-0229<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2006\/d2006-0229.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2006-0229<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 28.03.2006<br \/>\nIconcard S.p.A. v. Linecom<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2005-1115<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2005\/d2005-1115.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2005-1115<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 07.02.2006<br \/>\nF. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Digi Real Estate Foundation<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2005-1286<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2005\/d2005-1286.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2005-1286<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 06.02.2006<br \/>\nF. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. George McKennitt<br \/>\nDomain: u.a.<br \/>\nCase No.: D2005-1300<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2005\/d2005-1300.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2005-1300<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 04.01.2006<br \/>\nBiofarma v. UltimateDomains.com\/Jarred Cohen<br \/>\nDomain: u.a.<br \/>\nCase No.: D2005-0979<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2005\/d2005-0979.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2005-0979<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 02.01.2006<br \/>\n24Poker AB v. Jim Bim<br \/>\nDomain: &lt;24poker.com&gt;<br \/>\nCase No.: D2005-1097<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2005\/d2005-1097.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2005-1097<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 02.01.2006<br \/>\nSoci\u00e9t\u00e9 pour l\u2019Oeuvre et la M\u00e9moire d\u2019Antoine de Saint Exup\u00e9ry \u2013 Succession Saint Exup\u00e9ry \u2013 D\u2019Agay v. Perlegos Properties<br \/>\nDomain: Case No.: D2005-1085<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2005\/d2005-1085.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2005-1085<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 14.12.2005<br \/>\nHuge Fastigheter AB v. Netsol Ltd.<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: DNU2005-0002<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2005\/dnu2005-0002.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. DNU2005-0002<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 12.11.2005<br \/>\nRed Bull GmbH vs. Reinhard Birnhuber<br \/>\nDomain: u.a.<br \/>\nCase No.: D2005-0862<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2005\/d2005-0862.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2005-0862<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 29.08.2005<br \/>\nAIB-Vincotte Belgium ASBL, AIB-Vincotte USA Inc.\/Corporation Texas v. Guillermo Lozada, Jr.<br \/>\nDomain: u.a.<br \/>\nCase No.: D2005-0485<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2005\/d2005-0485.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2005-0485<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 12.06.2005<br \/>\nCr\u00e9dit Industriel et Commercial S.A v. Yu Ming<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2005-0458<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2005\/d2005-0458.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2005-0458<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 08.06.2005<br \/>\nVolvo Trademark Holding AB v. Auto Shivuk<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2005-0447<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2005\/d2005-0447.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2005-0447<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 07.04.2005<br \/>\nAlbert F\u00fcrst von Thurn und Taxis v. Rainer Merthan<br \/>\nDomain: u.a.<br \/>\nCase No.: D2005-0040<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2005\/d2005-0040.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2005-0040<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 23.03.2005<br \/>\nAssociazione Radio Maria v. Mr. Hong Hee Dong<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2005-0062<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2005\/d2005-0062.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2005-0062<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 10.09.2004<br \/>\n01059 GmbH v. VARTEX Media Marketing GmbH\/Stefan Heisig<br \/>\nDomain: &lt;01059.com&gt;<br \/>\nCase No.: D2004-0541<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2004\/d2004-0541.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2004-0541<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 30.07.2004<br \/>\nBanca Carige S.p.A. v. MustNeed.com, Lee Yi<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2004-0445<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2004\/d2004-0445.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2004-0445<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 20.04.2004<br \/>\nDeutsche Telekom AG v. Ch. J.<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2004-0132<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2004\/d2004-0132.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2004-0132<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 17.11.2003<br \/>\nAgnona S.p.A. v. Oleg Filipov-Guevreyan<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: DLA2003-0003<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2003\/dla2003-0003.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. DLA2003-0003<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 17.10.2003<br \/>\nSpreewaldverein e.V. v. RCS Richter Computer Systemhaus GmbH<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2003-0614<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2003\/d2003-0614.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2003-0614<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 22.08.2003<br \/>\nSoci\u00e9t\u00e9 Air France v. SZK.COM<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2003-0518<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2003\/d2003-0518.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2003-0518<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 27.05.2003<br \/>\nMerck KGaA v. Douglas Draper<br \/>\nDomain: u.a.<br \/>\nCase No.: D2003-0203<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2003\/d2003-0203.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2003-0203<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 22.04.2003<br \/>\nWeissenberger AG v. Imagelinc<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2003-0029<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2003\/d2003-0029.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2003-0029<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 10.03.2003<br \/>\nSanoma Osakeyhti\u00f6 v. Dennington Sales and Marketing Ltd.<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2003-0026<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2003\/d2003-0026.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2003-0026<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 20.01.2003<br \/>\nDeutsche Telekom AG v. Rainer Dillschnitter Unlimited GmbH<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2003-0951<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2003\/d2003-0951.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2003-0951<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 12.12.2002<br \/>\nMr. Garry Peter Leigh v. Mr. Steven Harris<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2002-0940<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2002\/d2002-0940.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2002-0940<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 04.11.2002<br \/>\nYurtici Kargo Servisi v. yavuz yavuzkaya2@hotmail.com<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2002-0763<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2002\/d2002-0763.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2002-0763<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 03.11.2002<br \/>\nCredit Libanais SAL v. Charbel Hajj<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2002-0792<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2002\/d2002-0792.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2002-0792<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 23.07.2002<br \/>\nIKB Deutsche Industriebank AG v. Bob Larkin<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2002-0420<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2002\/d2002-0420.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2002-0420<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 23.07.2002<br \/>\nJorgen Kruuse A\/S v. Donna Lawhorn Case<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: DBIZ2002-00181<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2002\/dbiz2002-00181.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. DBIZ2002-00181<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 09.07.2002<br \/>\nDePfa Deutsche Pfandbriefbank AG v. Michael Wilhelm<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2002-0401<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2002\/d2002-0401.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2002-0401<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 06.05.2002<br \/>\nBellSouth Intellectual Property Corporation v. Polanski<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2002-0170<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2002\/d2002-0170.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2002-0170<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 06.03.2002<br \/>\nAkbank v. Dr. Mehmet Kahveci Case<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2001-1488<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2001\/d2001-1488.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2001-1488<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 01.03.2002<br \/>\nAkbank v. Gurlercafe Case akbank.net<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2001-1489<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2001\/d2001-1489.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2001-1489<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 20.02.2002<br \/>\nDelikomat Betriebsverpflegung Gesellschaft m.b.H. v. Alexander Lehner<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2001-1447<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2001\/d2001-1447.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2001-1447<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 22.10.2001<br \/>\nRedbull GmbH v. Markus Bernhardt<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: DTV2001-0019<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2001\/dtv2001-0019.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. DTV2001-0019<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 30.08.2001<br \/>\nUniversit\u00e4t Stuttgart v. Junge Union Stuttgart<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2000-1767<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2000\/d2000-1767.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2000-1767<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 07.08.2001<br \/>\nSacher Hotels Betriebsgesellschaft mbH v. Henry Puts<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2001-0819<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2001\/d2001-0819.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2001-0819<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 01.06.2001<br \/>\nAlba Moda GmbH, Josef Witt GmbH &amp; Co. KG and Sport Scheck GmbH v. Brent Langton\/Victory Productions<br \/>\nDomain: u.a.<br \/>\nCase No.: D2001-0425<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2001\/d2001-0425.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2001-0425<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 29.05.2001<br \/>\nMobilkom Austria Ag v. Herbert Zajic<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2001-0466<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2001\/d2001-0466.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2001-0466<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 02.01.2001<br \/>\nDeutsche Welle v. DiamondWare Limited<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2000-1202<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2000\/d2000-1202.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2000-1202<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 22.08.2000<br \/>\nDiageo p.l.c. v. John Zuccarini<br \/>\nDomain:<br \/>\nCase No.: D2000-0541<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2000\/d2000-0541.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2000-0541<\/a><\/li>\n<li>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center<br \/>\nAdministrative Panel Decision vom 16.05.2000<br \/>\nLIBRO AG v. NA Global Link Limited<br \/>\nDomain: Case No.: D2000-0186<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2000\/d2000-0186.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO-Entscheidung zu Case No. D2000-0186<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Wie die mittlerweile mehr als 80.000 seit Inkrafttreten der UDRP am 1.12.1999 bei den Dispute Resolution Providern ergangenen Entscheidungen zeigen, hat sich die UDRP in der Rechtspraxis als wichtigstes au\u00dfergerichtliches Verfahren zu L\u00f6sung von Domainnamenskonflikten etabliert. Nachfolgend haben wir die UDRP-Verfahren aufgelistet, an denen wir als Schiedsrichter oder Parteivertreter beteiligt waren. Einen \u00dcberblick \u00fcber die [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":1008,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-1656","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"translation":{"provider":"WPGlobus","version":"3.0.5","language":"en","enabled_languages":["de","en"],"languages":{"de":{"title":true,"content":true,"excerpt":false},"en":{"title":false,"content":false,"excerpt":false}}},"acf":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v28.2 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy - Liste - Bettinger Rechtsanw\u00e4lte<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.bettinger.de\/infothek\/domainrecht-a-z\/uniform-domain-name-dispute-policy\/liste\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy - Liste - Bettinger Rechtsanw\u00e4lte\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.bettinger.de\/infothek\/domainrecht-a-z\/uniform-domain-name-dispute-policy\/liste\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Bettinger Rechtsanw\u00e4lte\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-03-24T10:35:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"33 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.bettinger.de\\\/infothek\\\/domainrecht-a-z\\\/uniform-domain-name-dispute-policy\\\/liste\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.bettinger.de\\\/infothek\\\/domainrecht-a-z\\\/uniform-domain-name-dispute-policy\\\/liste\\\/\",\"name\":\"Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy - Liste - Bettinger Rechtsanw\u00e4lte\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.bettinger.de\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2018-01-31T08:28:38+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-03-24T10:35:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.bettinger.de\\\/infothek\\\/domainrecht-a-z\\\/uniform-domain-name-dispute-policy\\\/liste\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.bettinger.de\\\/infothek\\\/domainrecht-a-z\\\/uniform-domain-name-dispute-policy\\\/liste\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.bettinger.de\\\/infothek\\\/domainrecht-a-z\\\/uniform-domain-name-dispute-policy\\\/liste\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.bettinger.de\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Infothek\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.bettinger.de\\\/infothek\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Domainrecht A-Z\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.bettinger.de\\\/infothek\\\/domainrecht-a-z\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":4,\"name\":\"Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.bettinger.de\\\/infothek\\\/domainrecht-a-z\\\/uniform-domain-name-dispute-policy\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":5,\"name\":\"Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy &#8211; Liste\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.bettinger.de\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.bettinger.de\\\/\",\"name\":\"Bettinger Rechtsanw\u00e4lte\",\"description\":\"Bettinger Rechtsanw\u00e4lte ist eine Anwaltssoziet\u00e4t aus juristisch und technisch qualifizierten Rechtsanw\u00e4lten mit Spezialisierung auf den Gebieten des gewerblichen Rechtsschutzes und des IT- und Medienrechts.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.bettinger.de\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.bettinger.de\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.bettinger.de\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Bettinger Rechtsanw\u00e4lte\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.bettinger.de\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.bettinger.de\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.bettinger.de\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Bettinger_Logo_Test.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.bettinger.de\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Bettinger_Logo_Test.png\",\"width\":349,\"height\":90,\"caption\":\"Bettinger Rechtsanw\u00e4lte\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.bettinger.de\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy - Liste - Bettinger Rechtsanw\u00e4lte","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.bettinger.de\/infothek\/domainrecht-a-z\/uniform-domain-name-dispute-policy\/liste\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy - Liste - Bettinger Rechtsanw\u00e4lte","og_url":"https:\/\/www.bettinger.de\/infothek\/domainrecht-a-z\/uniform-domain-name-dispute-policy\/liste\/","og_site_name":"Bettinger Rechtsanw\u00e4lte","article_modified_time":"2026-03-24T10:35:41+00:00","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"33 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.bettinger.de\/infothek\/domainrecht-a-z\/uniform-domain-name-dispute-policy\/liste\/","url":"https:\/\/www.bettinger.de\/infothek\/domainrecht-a-z\/uniform-domain-name-dispute-policy\/liste\/","name":"Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy - Liste - Bettinger Rechtsanw\u00e4lte","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.bettinger.de\/#website"},"datePublished":"2018-01-31T08:28:38+00:00","dateModified":"2026-03-24T10:35:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.bettinger.de\/infothek\/domainrecht-a-z\/uniform-domain-name-dispute-policy\/liste\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.bettinger.de\/infothek\/domainrecht-a-z\/uniform-domain-name-dispute-policy\/liste\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.bettinger.de\/infothek\/domainrecht-a-z\/uniform-domain-name-dispute-policy\/liste\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.bettinger.de\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Infothek","item":"https:\/\/www.bettinger.de\/infothek\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Domainrecht A-Z","item":"https:\/\/www.bettinger.de\/infothek\/domainrecht-a-z\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":4,"name":"Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy","item":"https:\/\/www.bettinger.de\/infothek\/domainrecht-a-z\/uniform-domain-name-dispute-policy\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":5,"name":"Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy &#8211; Liste"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.bettinger.de\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.bettinger.de\/","name":"Bettinger Rechtsanw\u00e4lte","description":"Bettinger Rechtsanw\u00e4lte ist eine Anwaltssoziet\u00e4t aus juristisch und technisch qualifizierten Rechtsanw\u00e4lten mit Spezialisierung auf den Gebieten des gewerblichen Rechtsschutzes und des IT- und Medienrechts.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.bettinger.de\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.bettinger.de\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.bettinger.de\/#organization","name":"Bettinger Rechtsanw\u00e4lte","url":"https:\/\/www.bettinger.de\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.bettinger.de\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.bettinger.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Bettinger_Logo_Test.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.bettinger.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Bettinger_Logo_Test.png","width":349,"height":90,"caption":"Bettinger Rechtsanw\u00e4lte"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.bettinger.de\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bettinger.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1656","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bettinger.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bettinger.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bettinger.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bettinger.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1656"}],"version-history":[{"count":30,"href":"https:\/\/www.bettinger.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1656\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3457,"href":"https:\/\/www.bettinger.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1656\/revisions\/3457"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bettinger.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1008"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bettinger.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1656"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}