According to the Rules, paragraph 11(a), based on the circumstances of this case and as previously decided by other UDRP panels (LEGO Juris A/S v. Ilie Cezar,
WIPO Case No. DRO2011-0010; Nilfisk-Advance A/S v. SC Getic Decor SRL,
WIPO Case No. ...As held by previous UDRP panels in similar cases, the use of the trademark in connection with other words does not lessen the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the complainant’s trademark. See LEGO Juris A/S v. Ilie Cezar,
WIPO Case No. DRO2011-0010.
It is well accepted that a ccTLD may be ignored when assessing identity or confusing similarity of a trademark and a domain name (see, e.g. ...
2012-04-19 - Case Details
Shi Lei aka shilei,
WIPO Case No. D2014-1093; and LEGO Juris A/S v. shilei,
WIPO Case No. D2016-0152.
For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
7. ...
2017-05-17 - Case Details
In particular, there are UDRP decisions stating that where a domain name incorporates the trademark and a generic word, the domain name is to be considered confusingly similar to the trademark owned by the Complainant (LEGO Juris A/S v. Devin Steenberg,
WIPO Case No. D2015-0394; QVC Inc. and ER Marks Inc. v. WhoIsGuard,
WIPO Case No. ...
2017-11-03 - Case Details
A gTLD is generally disregarded in assessing the confusing similarity of a domain name to a trademark because it is a technical requirement of registration. See Lego Juris A/S v. Chen Yong,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1611; Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. zhanglei,
WIPO Case No. ...
2018-04-09 - Case Details
Although passive domain name holding is not necessarily indicative of a lack of bad faith, Complainant also submitted evidence that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of registering similar domain names, thereby evidencing bad faith in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(ii), with other registrations including <lego-dk.com>, , , and . Although different mailing addresses are listed for each of these domain names, the same name, that of Respondent, is listed as the contact for each, and, tellingly, they list the same email address, also that of Respondent.
...
2018-07-10 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have regularly ruled that bad faith was found where a domain name is so obviously connected with a well-known trademark that its use by someone, with no connection to the trademark, suggests opportunistic bad faith. See LEGO Juris A/S v. store24hour,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0091 and Carrefour v. Jean-Claude Bot / Albert Pierre,
WIPO Case No. ...
2019-03-27 - Case Details
The Domain Name wholly incorporates the above trademark registrations. As indicated in LEGO Juris A/S v. Ma Ying Jo /Domain Admin, Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org,
WIPO Case No. ...
2019-01-25 - Case Details
See Facebook, Inc. v. E.B,
WIPO Case No. D2016-0623 and LEGO Juris A/S v. Nameinvest Inc. / E.B,
WIPO Case No. D2014-0803.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its well-known trademark AMUNDI, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith.
...
2019-07-10 - Case Details
For the purpose of assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark, the generic gTLD suffix “.com” may be disregarded (LEGO Juris A/S v. Whois Data Protection Sp. z o.o. / Mirek Nowakowski ROSTALCO Sp. z o.o.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2020-01-31 - Case Details
Past UDRP panels
have held that failure to respond to a cease-and-desist letter may be considered a further factor supporting a
finding of bad faith registration and use of a domain name. See LEGO Juris A/S v. Eveline Christiany,
WIPO Case No. D2011-2294.
Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied this third element of the Policy.
...
2024-10-08 - Case Details
Previous UDRP decisions have recognized that actual knowledge of a complainant’s trademarks and
activities at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name may give rise to an inference of bad
faith. See LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte, WIPO Case No. D2010-0494; Caixa D'Estalvis I Pensions de
Barcelona ("La Caixa") v. ...
2023-11-06 - Case Details
In particular the Panel finds that the Respondent must have known about the
Complainant’s ACCORHOTELS mark, as he acted opportunistically to adopt and use a confusingly similar
name to promote his goods many years after the Complainant had established its brand rights and
reputation around the world, including Germany where the Respondent appears to reside and across Asia.
See LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte, WIPO Case No. D2010-0494. The Panel takes notice of the nature of
the disputed domain name itself: the use of the unique combination of ACCOR and HOTELS by the
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/#item18
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?...
2023-03-13 - Case Details
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 3
The Domain Names wholly incorporate the Complainant’s trademark. As indicated in LEGO Juris A/S v. Ma
Ying Jo /Domain Admin, Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a , WIPO Case No.
...
2023-11-29 - Case Details
둘째, 피신청인은 분쟁도메인이름을 사용하여 웹사이트를 운영하고 있는데 그 내용은 정상적인 상업적 목적을 위한 것이라기 보다는 신청인의 서비스표와 동일하거나 유사한 분쟁도메인이름을 사용하여 인터넷 이용자들의 트래픽을 증가시켜 부당한 수익을 얻으려는 부정한 목적이 있는 것으로 추정할 수 있다
셋째, 피신청인은 과거에도 유명상표를 포함한 도메인이름을 다수 등록하여 WIPO 및 타기관의 결정으로 도메인이름들의 이전 명령을 여러 차례 받은 바 있는데,( Mysuelly v. Yang Kyung Won,
WIPO Case No. D2013-1145; LEGO Juris A/S v. Yang Kyung Won,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1124; Sven Beichler v. Yang Kyung Won, Lee Sujin,
WIPO Case No. ...
2014-09-18 - Case Details
The addition of such generic terms does not prevent confusion (see, e.g., LEGO Juris A/S v. Nick Terlouw,
WIPO Case No. DNL2011-0023; Taylor Made Golf Company, Inc. v. Lotom Group S.A.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-12-17 - Case Details
John Hopking / Neo net Ltd., supra , “generally, a user of a mark may not avoid likely confusion by appropriating another’s entire mark and adding descriptive or non-distinctive matter to it”, cited by the Complainant as well in the case LEGO Juris A/S v. PrivacyProtect.org / Kim Bum LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2012-2462 (“the addition of descriptive terms to a trademark is generally not a distinguishing feature[..]”), the addition of generic terms such as “buy” and “onlinestore” do not distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark.
...
2013-05-30 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The addition of generic terms such as “buy” and “now” do not distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s XENICAL trademark. See LEGO Juris A/S v. PrivacyProtect.org / Kim Bum LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2012-2462 (“the addition of descriptive terms to a trademark is generally not a distinguishing feature….”). ...
2013-05-15 - Case Details
In particular, there are UDRP decisions stating that the incorporation of the trademark and a generic word in a domain name is misleading and confusingly similar to the trademark owned by the complainant (LEGO Juris A/S v. Devin Steenberg,
WIPO Case No. D2015-0394; QVC Inc. and ER Marks Inc. v. WhoisGuard,
WIPO Case No. ...
2017-02-06 - Case Details
The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. See LEGO Juris A/S v. Brock Flanagan, BJF Web Design,
WIPO Case No. DAU2016-0027 (August 19, 2016). The Respondent has made no attempt to do so. ...
2016-09-29 - Case Details
Technology Services Ltd.,
WIPO Zaaknr. DNL2008-0002 en LEGO Juris A/S v. M. Moench,
WIPO Case No. DNL2009-0052). In dat geval rust op verweerder de bewijslast aan te tonen dat hij een recht op of legitiem belang bij de Domeinnaam heeft.
...
2015-06-26 - Case Details