Technology Services Ltd.,
WIPO Zaaknr. DNL2008-0002; en LEGO Juris A/S v. M. Moench,
WIPO Zaaknr. DNL2009-0052). Indien Eisers hieraan voldoen, dan rust op de Verweerder de bewijslast aan te tonen dat hij een recht op of legitiem belang bij de Domeinnaam heeft.
...
2015-10-22 - Case Details
Where a domain name is so obviously connected with a trademark, its very use by someone with no connection to the trademark suggests opportunistic bad faith (see, e.g., LEGO Juris A/S v. store24hour;
WIPO Case No. D2013-0091; Lancôme parfums et Beauté & Cie, L'Oréal v 10 Selling,
WIPO Case No. ...
2016-12-19 - Case Details
Naast de hiervoor onder paragraaf 5.A. door Eiseressen aangehaalde zaak, blijkt verder dat Verweerder recentelijk als verweerder betrokken is geweest in Lego Juris A/S v. M. Moench,
WIPO Zaaknr. DNL2009-0052 (ter zake het domein ), waarin de geschillenbeslechter oordeelde tot overdracht van de betreffende domeinnaam, mede op grond van, door de geschillenbeslechter gevonden, registratie te kwader trouw van de desbetreffende domeinnaam.
...
2009-12-21 - Case Details
The Complainant succeeded in obtaining orders for the transfer to it of the domain names, (LEGO Juris A/S v. Deng Yi Xia, La Duzi and Hu Li,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0858) and (Levantur, S.A. v. ...
2010-04-15 - Case Details
Thilak Raj, Net Jobs,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0033; and LEGO Juris A/S v. Private, Registration/Dohe Dot,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0753.
Accordingly the Panel finds that the Complainant has established element 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2011-02-16 - Case Details
D2010-0636, the same methodology was employed, as was also the case in LEGO Juris A/S v. Rampe Purda,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0840, and is the case here.
In the light of such a pattern of abusive behavior associated with the name Rampe Purda, the Panel has no hesitation in accepting the Complainant's submissions in connection with registration and use in bad faith in the present case, and, accordingly, decides that the Complainant has also satisfied the test set out in paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
7. ...
2010-08-12 - Case Details
The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. LEGO Juris A/S v. PrivacyProtect.org/ThaiSerVerOnLinE, Mr.Sagsan Phurahong,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0711; Audi AG v. ...
2012-02-28 - Case Details
D2013-0188, Groupe Auchan v. Gan Yu;
WIPO Case No. D2010-0138, LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master).
...Bad faith has already been found where a domain name is so obviously connected with a well-known trademark that its very use by someone with no connection to the trademark suggests opportunistic bad faith (
WIPO Case No. D2013-0091, LEGO Juris A/S v. store24hour;
WIPO Case No. D2008-0226, Lancôme Parfums et Beauté & Cie, L'Oréal v. 10 Selling;
WIPO Case No. ...
2017-12-06 - Case Details
WhoisGuard Protected / Cindy Smith,
WIPO Case No. D2019-0941; LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...Prior UDRP panels have held that bad faith can be found where a domain name is so obviously connected with a well-known trademark that its very use by someone with no connection to the trademark suggests opportunistic bad faith (LEGO Juris A/S v. store24hour,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0091; Lancôme Parfums et Beauté & Cie, L’Oréal v. 10 Selling,
WIPO Case No. ...
2022-03-16 - Case Details
If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. (see, e.g. LEGO Juris A/S v. Anton Obrezkov,
WIPO Case No. DUA2020-0001).
The Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with the Complainant in any way. ...Instead, the Respondent is (mis)representing itself as “TikTok Ukraine”, conveying the false impression that the Respondent was authorized to use the Complainant’s trademark and offer the Complainant’s services (see also LEGO Juris A/S v. Anton Obrezkov,
WIPO Case No. DUA2020-0001).
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on May 17, 2019, which is after the Complainant filed for registration of its TIK TOK trademark, and after the Complainant’s first use in commerce of its trademark in 2017. ...
2020-09-01 - Case Details
无证据表明被投诉人对争议域名的使用是合法非商业性的或是合理的。专家组认为，本案中亦无其他情形可证明被投诉人对争议域名享有权利或合法利益。参见LEGO Juris A/S 诉 SunBusiness.Co (广州霞际九光网络科技有限公司), WIPO 案件编号 D2020-1773。
因此，专家组认定，在投诉人已提供了初步证据证明被投诉人对争议域名不享有任何权利或合法利益后，被投诉人未能提供任何证据证明其对争议域名享有权利或合法利益。...参见WIPO Overview 3.0，第3.3节；Telstra Corporation Limited 诉 Nuclear Marshmallows，WIPO 案件编号 D2000-0003和LEGO Juris A/S 诉 lihailiang，WIPO 案件编号 DSO2011-0002。WIPO Overview 3.0的第3.3节进而要求专家组必须考察各种情况以认定被投诉人的行为是否具有恶意，并列举了几种可被视为恶意的情况，包括：(i) 投诉人商标的独特性或知名度，(ii) 被投诉人未作出答辩或提供任何实际或经得起考验的善意使用的证据，(iii) 被投诉人隐瞒身份，或使用的虚假联系方式（违反其注册协议），以及(iv) 不具诚实使用或善意使用域名的可能性等。
...
2021-04-01 - Case Details
The Polygenix Group Co.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0163; LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494; Sanofi-Aventis v. Nevis Domains LLC.
WIPO Case No. D2006-0303; LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494; Sanofi-Aventis v. Nevis Domains LLC.
WIPO Case No. ...
2014-09-09 - Case Details
相同或混淆性相似
本案争议域名，完全包含投诉人ELECTROLUX商标字样，其余部分为“shou”和“.com”。“.com”是一个顶级域名，本身不具有任何区别争议域名与投诉人商标的效果(LEGO Juris A/S 诉 Chen Yong，WIPO案件编号D2009-1611)。
根据过去专家组的裁决，如果争议域名完整包含了投诉人的商标字样，即使争议域名附加了其他无意义的字串，在一般的情况下，也无法使争议域名与投诉人商标有所区别(Picanol, Naamloze Vennootschap (N.V.) ...更未见被投诉人提出证据证明，其对“electroluxshou”享有商标权或相对应的企业、事业的名称，或者虽然其对“electroluxshou”不享有商标权，但被投诉人已因该争议域名而广为公众所知。(LEGO Juris A/S 诉 Yong Zhi, WIPO案件编号D2011-1406)。
综上，投诉人已提出初步证据证明被投诉人对争议域名不享有任何权利或合法利益，被投诉人亦未提出相对应的证据或答辩。...
2013-03-27 - Case Details
本案争议域名，除“.co”这个国家代码顶级域名之外，完全与投诉人的ARALDITE商标字样相同。而“.co”是一国家代码顶级域名，本身也未具备任何区别争议域名与投诉人商标的效果(LEGO Juris A/S 诉 Chen Yong，WIPO案件编号D2009-1611)。本案争议域名完全没有包含其他任何可以有效区别争议域名与投诉人ARALDITE商标的要素，因此专家组认定，争议域名与投诉人的ARALDITE商标相同，投诉书符合政策第4条(a)项所规定的第一个要素。
...更未见被投诉人提出证据显示，其对“Araldite”享有商标权或相对应的注册公司、事业的名称，或者虽然其对“Araldite”不享有商标权，但被投诉人已因该争议域名而广为公众所知。(LEGO Juris A/S 诉 Yong Zhi, WIPO案件编号D2011-1406)。
综上，投诉人已提出初步证据证明被投诉人对争议域名不享有任何权利或合法利益，被投诉人亦未提出相对应的证据或答辩。...
2013-06-06 - Case Details
Cibergirona, S.L, Caso Autocontrol y Toyota España, S.L.U. v. A. F.W., Caso Autocontrol; LEGO Juris A/S v. Andrew Vierling,
Caso OMPI No. D2010-1913; o LEGO Juris A/S v. DBA David Inc./ DomainsByProxy.com,
Caso OMPI No. ...
2013-05-17 - Case Details
根据投诉人提交的证据，争议域名曾指向一色情网站，专家组亦注意到该网站底部写有“广告合作”、“域名出售”等，所以专家组认定被投诉人并非是用争议域名善意提供商品或服务。参见LEGO Juris A/S 诉bangfei jiang，WIPO 案件编号 D2012-1235。专家组认为，本案中亦无其他情形可证明被投诉人对争议域名享有权利或合法利益。
因此，专家组认定，在投诉人已提供了初步证据证明被投诉人对争议域名不享有任何权利或合法利益后，被投诉人未能提供任何证据证明其对争议域名享有权利或合法利益。...诉 Dazzledesigns，WIPO 案件编号 D2004-0436（被投诉人使用包括投诉人的名称和商标的域名并将该域名指向色情网站，其本身便构成恶意）；LEGO Juris A/S 诉bangfei jiang，同上。因此，被投诉人的这一行为构成恶意。此外，专家组注意到该网站底部写有“域名出售”的字样，专家组认为这进一步说明了被投诉人的恶意的存在。
鉴于上述事实及论据，专家组认定被投诉人注册和使用争议域名具有恶意。...
2016-02-09 - Case Details
In the case at hand, the Panel finds that adding the generic words "parts store" to the CAT trademark does not render the Domain Name less confusingly similar to the CAT trademark (see, e.g., LEGO Juris A/S v. Thomas Plaut,
WIPO Case No. D2012-1822; L'Oréal, Lancôme Parfums Et Beauté & Cie v. Jack Yang,
WIPO Case No. ...Whois ID Theft Protection,
WIPO Case No. D2006-1435; and LEGO Juris A/S v. SAKCHAI SRION,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0604). As CAT constitutes the dominant part of the Domain Name, there is a considerable risk that the public will be under the impression that the Respondent's Domain Name is owned by the Complainant or will think that there is some kind of commercial relationship with the Complainant. ...
2016-01-18 - Case Details
参见Aventis Pharma SA., Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH v. Jonathan Valicenti, WIPO 案件编号D2005-0037和LEGO Juris A/S 诉 Chen Yong, WIPO案件编号D2009-1611。
争议域名的使用很可能会令互联网用户误认为争议域名指向投诉人（1）或（2）的网站。...见Jupiters Limited v. Aaron Hall, WIPO案件编号D2000-0574和LEGO Juris A/S 诉Chen Yong，同上。
鉴于上述事实及论据，专家组认定被投诉人在申请争议域名注册时已知道或应该知道SAMSUNG是投诉人拥有的商标。上述行为构成政策下之恶意注册和使用。...
2011-04-18 - Case Details
参见Aventis Pharma SA., Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH v. Jonathan Valicenti, WIPO 案件编号D2005-0037和LEGO Juris A/S 诉 Chen Yong, WIPO 案件编号D2009-1611。
因此，专家组认为争议域名与投诉人的上述PORSCHE商标混淆性相似。投诉人完成了政策第4条(a)项所规定的第一个要素的举证责任。
...见Jupiters Limited v. Aaron Hall, WIPO案件编号D2000-0574和LEGO Juris A/S 诉Chen Yong，WIPO案件编号D2009-1611。
鉴于上述事实及论据，专家组认定被投诉人在申请争议域名注册时已知道或应该知道PORSCHE是投诉人拥有的商标。上述行为构成政策下之恶意注册和使用。...
2011-07-25 - Case Details
参见Aventis Pharma SA., Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH v. Jonathan Valicenti, WIPO案件编号D2005-0037和LEGO Juris A/S 诉 Chen Yong, 同上。相反，可能加剧消费者的混淆。在争议域名中将“shoes”同“Fivefingers”一起使用而形成“Fivefingers-shoes”（五指鞋）。...见Jupiters Limited v. Aaron Hall, WIPO案件编号D2000-0574和LEGO Juris A/S 诉Chen Yong，同上。
鉴于上述事实及论据，专家组认定被投诉人在申请争议域名注册时已知道或应该知道FIVEFINGERS是投诉人拥有的商标。上述行为构成政策下之恶意注册和使用。...
2011-12-08 - Case Details