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
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
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
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
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. ...
2011-04-06 - Case Details
Above.com Domain Privacy / Shu Lin, Shu Lin Enterprises Limited / Host Master, Transure Enterprise Ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1986; LEGO Juris A/S v. Shu Lin/Transure Enterprise Ltd/ Above.com Domain Privacy,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1648 (finding that Transure Enterprise Ltd’s involvement in numerous prior UDRP proceedings supported a clear finding of registration and use in bad faith).
...
2011-04-06 - 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 v. Chen Yong, WIPO案件编号D2009-1611。相反，可能加剧消费者的混淆。在争议域名中将“store”同DR. MARTENS商标一起使用而形成“Dr Martens Store”（Dr. ...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DR. MARTENS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。...
2012-01-20 - Case Details
“[I]t is well-settled that the use of another’s trademark to sell competitive goods and services [...] cannot [...] be considered to be a bona fide offering of goods and services”); Lego Juris A/S v. Privacy Protect.org / SMVS Consultancy Private Limited,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1094.
The disputed domain name incorporates the mark and resolves to the Respondent’s Website with Sponsored Links advertising competing or closely related products to those published and marketed by the Complainant. ...The “use of [a] Domain Name [...] simply to provide links to web sites (a practice that is typically engaged in to collect click-through referral fees) cannot be considered [...] a noncommercial [...] use.” See Lego Juris A/S, supra. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name at all times has been commercial given the sponsored ads that comprise the Respondent’s website (i.e., the Sponsored Links) and the singular commercial purpose of the Third Party Websites to which the Sponsored Links resolve.
...
2012-02-10 - Case Details
Numerosas decisiones bajo la Política han entendido que el uso de páginas Web vinculadas a nombres de dominio idénticos o similares hasta el punto de crear confusión con una marca renombrada que contiene enlaces a otras páginas Web, ya sean del demandante o de terceros, no se puede considerar como uso legítimo y no comercial de los nombres de dominio, en el sentido de la Política (por ejemplo, LEGO Juris A/S v. Andrew Vierling,
Caso OMPI No. D2010-1913 y LEGO Juris A/S v. DBA David Inc./ DomainsByProxy.com,
Caso OMPI No. ...
2012-05-25 - Case Details
D2009-0904; see also Lockheed Martin Corporation v. NBPro Hosting,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0859; Lego Juris A/S v. Privacy Protect.org/SMVS Consultancy Private Limited,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1094.
The Domain Name incorporates the Mark and resolves to the Respondent’s Website with Sponsored Links advertising competing or closely related products to those published and marketed by the Complainant.. ...The “use of [a] Domain Name Name [...] simply to provide links to web sites (a practice that is typically engaged in to collect click through referral fees) cannot be considered [...] a noncommercial use”. See Lego Juris A/S, supra. The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name at all times has been commercial given the sponsored ads that comprise the Respondent’s Website (i.e., the Sponsored Links) and the singular commercial purpose of the Third Party Websites to which the Sponsored Links resolve.
...
2012-04-13 - Case Details
本案争议域名完全包含投诉人BRADESCO商标字样，其余部分为“exclusive”和“.com”。“.com”是一个通用顶级域名代码，在本案中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)。
至于英文“exclusive”，其中文可译为“专用的”或“独家的”，是普通英文名词，无法产生区别本案争议域名与投诉人的BRADESCO商标的效果。...被投诉人也没有提出证据显示，其对BRADESCO享有商标权或相对应的注册公司、事业组织的名称，或者虽然其对BRADESCO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反主张和证据。...
2014-03-20 - Case Details
In the absence of any license from the Complainant to use the trade mark, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the domain name can reasonably be claimed. (LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...Bad faith may be found where a domain name is so obviously connected with a well-known trade mark that its use by someone with no connection to the trade mark suggests opportunistic bad faith. (LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494; and Sanofi-Aventis v. Nevis Domains LLC,
WIPO Case No. ...
2013-05-22 - Case Details
However, even with this difficulty in using the WHOIS database to obtain information, the Complainant has listed an impressive number of aliases together with evidence of their connection to the Respondent, namely:
Arcane Publishing
Craig Communications
Craig Cottrell
D Perkins
D Wheatley
Dave Wheatley
DFS Furniture
Doris Dogherty
Dorothy Perkin
Drew Miles
f i s
Fred Scot
Fred Ward
James Kent
James Walters
Jason Jones
Le Windsor
Marcus Spencer
Marcus Spencer trading
Stuart Watson
In addition, the Complainant maintains that the following domain names, all of which feature well known marks, have all been registered by one or more of the Respondent’s aliases:
Domain Name Registrant
Arcane Publishing/
Craig Cottrell
Arcane Publishing/
Craig Cottrell
Drew Miles
James Kent
Drew Miles
Fred Scot
Drew Miles
Fred Scot
Dorothy Perkin
Dorothy Perkin
Arcane Publishing/
Craig Cottrell
Arcane Publishing/
Craig Cottrell
Arcane Publishing/
Craig Cottrell
<lego-land-windsor.com> Dave Wheatley
<lego-land-windsor.co.uk> Dave Wheatley
Arcane Publishing/
Craig Cottrell
Marcus Spencer Trading/
Marcus Spencer
Marcus Spencer Trading
Marcus Spencer Trading/
Marcus Spencer
Marcus Spencer Trading
Marcus Spencer Trading/
Marcus Spencer
Marcus Spencer Trading
James Kent
Arcane Publishing/
Craig Cottrell
James Kent
Arcane Publishing/
Craig Cottrell
D Perkins
D Perkins
David Wheatley
David Wheatley
David Wheatley
James Kent
James Kent
Doris Dogherty
Doris Dogherty
Stuart Watson
Stuart Watson
Stuart Watson
David Wheatley
Further, or in the alternative, the Complainant submits that the two disputed domain names were registered by the Respondent in order to prevent the Complainant, the owner of trade marks incorporating the word SUPERDRUG from reflecting this mark in corresponding Domain Names, and that the Respondent has habitually engaged in such activity. ...
2001-04-30 - Case Details
First, as shown above, it is difficult to imagine that the Respondent could have been unaware of the well-known trademark AIR FRANCE at the time the Respondent applied for registration of the confusingly similar disputed domain names. See for instance, LEGO JURIS A/S v. Wyntergreen.ca,
WIPO Case No. D2010-2101 regarding the domain names and : “It has been established that the registration of a domain name incorporating a well-known trademark may in appropriate circumstances constitute registration in bad faith, since it is unlikely that the registrant was unaware of the established rights in the mark at the time the domain name was registered . . . Given the recognized notoriety of the LEGO and LEGOLAND trademarks, the Panel finds that it is implausible that Respondent was unaware of Complainant’s trademark rights when registering the disputed domain names and ”.
...
2011-05-24 - Case Details
The Complainant points to the fact that Liu
Fen, the underlying registrant for the disputed domain name, is listed as the Respondent in numerous similar
page 3
UDRP complaints which include TEVA and Lego. In each of these cases, the Complainant`s trademark was
registered in a domain name that was subsequently offered for sale. ...
2024-05-01 - Case Details
In this regard, many panels have previously acknowledged the
Complainant’s reputation worldwide, making it unlikely that the Respondent was not aware of the
Complainant’s rights in the MITTAL trademark (LEGO Juris A/S v. My Store Admin, Wrangler Bags, WIPO
Case No. D2024-2560).
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/text.jsp?...
2026-02-03 - Case Details
Finally, as affirmed by previous UDRP panels, the failure of a respondent to respond to a cease and desist
letter has been considered relevant in a finding of bad faith; see e.g. LEGO Juris A/S v. Colin Heggie,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1304.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.
7. ...
2024-10-11 - Case Details
Such actions are clear evidence of bad faith use and registration under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. See LEGO Juris A/S v. Communikas LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2010-2115.
The Panel therefore concludes that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has also been met.
7. ...
2011-12-01 - Case Details
In the Panel’s view, such conduct cannot be regarded as giving rise to rights or legitimate interests on the part of the Respondent to register and use the disputed domain name (see, e.g., LEGO Juris A/S v. Andrei Novakovich,
WIPO Case No. D2016-1513).
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name resolving to an inactive website (see, e.g., Philip Morris USA Inc. v. ...
2020-07-30 - Case Details
Natomiast przyrostek ‘.com’ nie wpływa na ocenę identyczności lub podobieństwa znaku i nazwy domeny w ramach niniejszej przesłanki (zobacz LEGO Juris A/S v. Whois Data Protection Sp. z o.o. / Mirek Nowakowski ROSTALCO Sp. z o.o., sprawa WIPO nr D2012-0607). .
...
2020-06-04 - Case Details