L’Expert constate enfin que le Défendeur a déjà été condamné pour des faits similaires, et notamment dans les affaires suivantes : Lego Juris A/S ./. Adrjan Wajdarz, Litige OMPI n° DFR2010-0016 (transfert) et Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer Français (SNCF) /. ...
2011-05-13 - Case Details
Technology Services Ltd.,
WIPO Zaaknr. DNL2008-0002 en LEGO Juris A/S v. M. Moench,
WIPO Zaaknr. DNL2009-0052). Indien Eiser hieraan voldoet, dan rust op Verweerder de bewijslast aan te tonen dat hij een recht op of legitiem belang bij de Domeinnaam heeft.
...
2011-09-13 - Case Details
Moreover, the “UK” geographical indicator detracts in no way from the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trade mark (see LEGO Juris A/S v. Owen Jones,
WIPO Case No. D2011-0537).
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established prima facie evidence that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy.
...
2012-01-17 - Case Details
The Respondent has engaged in such conduct before: see Lego Juris A/S v. Taejang Toonglo,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0457.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. ...
2012-01-13 - Case Details
L’Expert fait référence notamment à la décision suivante :Lego Juris A/S contre Mickael Demimuid,
Litige OMPI No. DFR2009-0038.
Au vu de ce qui précède, l’Expert considère que le Requérant est titulaire de droits sur la dénomination SFR à titre de marque, nom de domaine et dénomination sociale. ...
2011-04-05 - 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 in L’Oréal v. Rampe Purda / Privacy--Protect.org,
WIPO Case No. ...
2010-09-02 - Case Details
Technology Services Ltd.,
WIPO Zaaknr. DNL2008-0002; en LEGO Juris A/S v. M. Moench,
WIPO Zaaknr. DNL2009-0052). Indien Eiseres hieraan voldoet, dan rust op Verweerder de bewijslast aan te tonen dat hij wel degelijk een recht op of legitiem belang bij de Domeinnaam heeft.
...
2017-07-13 - Case Details
Where the Complainant's mark is so widely known that a respondent cannot credibly claim to have been unaware of the mark, previous UDRP panels have been prepared to hold that the domain name was registered in bad faith. See LEGO Juris A/S v. Domains by Proxy, Inc., DomainsByProxy.com / DBA David Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1839.
...
2018-07-23 - Case Details
For the purpose of assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, the generic Top-Level Domain 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. ...
2020-02-07 - Case Details
A finding of bad faith registration and usage is amply supported by the uncontroverted evidence. See LEGO Juis A/S v. Domains by Proxy, Inc., DomainsByProxiy.com / DBA David Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1839 (“the circumstances of this case lead the Panel to consider that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s Trademark and of its corresponding toys and games and thus registered the Disputed Domain Names and uses them in bad faith in order to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s Trademark for the Respondent’s commercial gain”).
...
2019-07-25 - Case Details
Each domain namecontains the name of a major company, such as “Airbus”, “Lego” or “Disney”, with the addition of a general or descriptive word, such as “grp”, “hq”, or a geographic descriptor, such as “mx”.
...
2019-12-20 - Case Details
In the circumstances of this case, the passive holding of the disputed domain name
constitutes bad faith registration and use.
In similar circumstances, the Panel in LEGO Juris A/S v. M. Moench, WIPO Case No. D2011-0913, found
that the addition of the term “new” to a well-known trademark did not avoid a finding of confusing similarity
and in fact reinforced the false impression of affiliation or renewal, supporting a finding of bad faith
registration and use.
...
2025-10-17 - Case Details
Technology Services Ltd., WIPO Zaaknr. DNL2008-0002; en LEGO Juris A/S v. M. Moench, WIPO Zaaknr.
DNL2009-0052). Indien Eiseres hieraan voldoet, dan is het aan de Verweerster om aan te tonen dat zij wel
een recht heeft op of legitiem belang bij de Domeinnaam.
...
2024-12-18 - Case Details
UDRP panels found in previous decisions that in the absence of any license or permission from the
complainant to use widely known trademarks, no bona fide or legitimate use of a disputed domain name may
reasonably be claimed (LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy,
Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master, WIPO Case No. ...
2022-09-26 - Case Details
The Complainant asserted that Frank Park had already used the other Respondent as a privacy shield, and that Respondent Frank Park “is engaged in a cyber squatting pattern of conduct”, as revealed, inter alia, by cases Lego Juris A/S v. Frank Park / Privacy Protection Service Inc. d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org,
WIPO Case No. ...
2014-12-12 - Case Details
Technology Services Ltd.,
WIPO Zaaknr. DNL2008-0002; en LEGO Juris A/S v. M. Moench,
WIPO Zaaknr. DNL2009-0052). Indien de Eiser hieraan voldoet, dan rust op de Verweerder de bewijslast aan te tonen dat hij een recht op of legitiem belang bij de Domeinnaam heeft.
...
2015-03-19 - Case Details
Yaming have each been named as the respondent in a number of UDRP proceedings in the past – well over a dozen in total – including but not limited to LEGO Juris A/S v. Yang Kyung Won,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1124 (), Target Brands, Inc. v. Yang Kyung Won,
WIPO Case No. ...
2015-05-26 - Case Details
D2015-2175; see also Dassault (Groupe Industriel Marcel Dassault) v. Ma Xiaojuan,
WIPO Case No. D2015-1733; Lego Juris A/S v. Chen Yong,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1611; Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. zhanglei,
WIPO Case No. ...
2017-01-05 - 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. ...
2016-02-26 - Case Details
The Respondent is not an authorised reseller or distributor of the Complainant’s products. Applying the comments of the panelist in Lego Juris A/S v. Probuilders,
WIPO Case No. D2011-0226, the sale of the Complainant’s products by the Respondent under the banner of the Complainant’s logos and trade marks is clearly designed to imply a connection between the Respondent and the Complainant.
...
2015-10-28 - Case Details