The absence of such authorization has been viewed as an impediment to a legitimate use claim (see LEGO Juris A/S v. Domain Park Ltd., David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2020-05-18 - Case Details
The Complainant has provided evidence that it owns trademark registrations long before the disputed domain name was registered and that it is not affiliated with nor has it licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademark (see LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-03-30 - Case Details
Withheld for
Privacy ehf / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, WIPO Case No. D2021-2366,
and LEGO Juris A/S v. Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, WIPO Case
No. D2021-1813, among others.
...
2022-03-04 - Case Details
Such circumstances include, inter alia:
(i) evidence showing that the respondent can understand the language of the complaint;
(ii) the language/script of the domain name particularly where the same as that of the complainant’s mark;
(iii) any content on the webpage under the disputed domain name;
(iv) potential unfairness or unwarranted delay in ordering the complainant to translate the complaint;
(v) other indicia tending to show that it would not be unfair to proceed in a language other than that of the registration agreement (e.g., LEGO Juris A/S v. Leonid Žitnikov,
WIPO Case No. DEUL2021-0002; Skyscanner Limited v. Bolognesi Damiano, Aim S.r.l,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-10-28 - Case Details
The Complainants have provided evidence that they own trademark registrations long before the disputed domain names were registered and that they are not affiliated with nor have they licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Complainants’ trademark (see LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-05-25 - Case Details
Above.com Domain Privacy / Transure Enterprise Ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2018-1698; LEGO Juris A/S v. Transure Enterprise Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1347.
7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.
...
2021-12-02 - Case Details
Withheld for Privacy ehf / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico,
WIPO Case No. D2021-2366, and LEGO Juris A/S v. Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico,
WIPO Case No. D2021-1813, among others), which further reinforces the overall impression of bad faith in this case: see e.g. section 3.1.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).
...
2021-11-29 - Case Details
This evidences bad faith pursuant to
paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy. See LEGO Juris A/S v. Thomas Ronk, Tendy LLC, WIPO Case No.
D2022-1284 (multiple domain names in proceeding were used and registered in bad faith by Respondent
Thomas Ronk, Tendy LLC).
...
2022-11-14 - Case Details
The Complainant has provided evidence that it owns trademark registrations long before the disputed
domain name was registered and that it is not affiliated with nor has it licensed or otherwise permitted the
Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademark (see LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith,
Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master, WIPO Case No. ...
2022-10-26 - 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 (“gTLD”) suffix “.com” may generally be disregarded as a gTLD being simply a necessary component of a domain name (LEGO Juris A/S v. Whois Data Protection Sp. z o.o. / Mirek Nowakowski ROSTALCO Sp. z o.o.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2017-07-18 - Case Details
It has been held in previous UDRP cases that knowledge of a corresponding mark at the time of the domain name’s registration suggests bad faith (LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494; Caixa D’Estalvis I Pensions de Barcelona (“La Caixa”) v. ...
2017-01-17 - 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.
...
2018-06-22 - 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. ...
2019-03-08 - Case Details
D2016-0852 (transferring ); citing Lego Juris A/S v. shenglan li,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0373 (transferring <365lego.com> and finding that 365 is a “term commonly referring to 365 days in a year […].”)
...
2017-11-09 - 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
The letters are too minor to dispel confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the Complainant's trademark, while a gTLD suffix may generally be disregarded for the purposes of the comparison of a disputed domain name and a trademark. 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. ...
2017-12-19 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have ruled that gTLD suffix generally has no capacity to distinguish a domain name from a trademark (see 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. ...
2016-04-28 - 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 (“gTLD”) suffix “.com” may generally be disregarded as a gTLD being simply a necessary component of a domain name (LEGO Juris A/S v. Whois Data Protection Sp. z o.o. / Mirek Nowakowski ROSTALCO Sp. z o.o.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2017-07-05 - 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, D2007-1872).
...
2017-06-21 - 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 very 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. ...
2018-11-26 - Case Details