The Panel will have to establish whether the Complainant’s case meets the requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. See LEGO Juris A/S v. NyunHwa Jung,
WIPO Case No. D2012‑1233; Charabot SA v. Name Redacted,
WIPO Case No. D2018-0339.
...
2018-11-05 - Case Details
The Complainant contends, and cites previous decisions in support of the contention, that in the absence of any license or permission from the Complainant to use a famous or widely-known trade mark, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain name could reasonably be claimed, citing:
Groupe Auchan v. Gan Yu,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0188; LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2018-10-24 - Case Details
Complainant states that a party using the same address as Respondent has previously offered domains for sale to trademark owners, demonstrating that Respondent is engaged in a pattern of behavior demonstrative of bad faith, and providing case references, e.g., to LEGO Juris A/S v. Transure Enterprise Ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1347.
Complainant believes Respondent has adopted and is using the Domain Name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users seeking Complainant's services for commercial gain. ...
2018-09-18 - Case Details
Mediaking LLC d/b/a Mediaking Corporation and Aaftek Domain Corp.,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1404 and Lego Juris A/S v. Young entrepreneur success, Trian Tego Utomo MSA,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0354.
The Respondent has not replied to the Complaint, and as such has not provided evidence of circumstances of the type specified in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or any other circumstances giving rise to a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
...
2012-11-20 - Case Details
These links should therefore be considered as sponsored links. This sort of arrangement was discussed in LEGO Juris A/S v. Suka LLC,
WIPO Case No. 2011-1057, regarding the domain names and where the panel stated: “The Panel finds that no bona fide offering of goods and services can be found, when a site is using, without a license or authorization, a registered trademark as part of its name to indirectly solicit orders for products sold by others, even if the products finally sold are made by the Complainant.” ...
2012-01-24 - Case Details
In the absence of any license or permission from the Complainant to use its trademark, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the Disputed Domain Name could reasonably be claimed. See LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0138). While the Panel notes that the terms “stone,” “island,” and “home” have dictionary meanings, the website at the Disputed Domain Name does not provide information related to any such dictionary meaning, but rather resolves to an online store selling what appear to be counterfeit products (as described below).
6.10. ...
2014-12-18 - Case Details
Quite to the contrary, the addition of this term rather increases the risk of confusion with the ROGER DUBUIS Mark of the Complainant since it is the main product protected by said trademarks. (LEGO Juris A/S v. Susan Waldes,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1845 ().
As a result, based on the rights of the Complainant in the ROGER DUBUIS Mark and on the confusing similarity between these trademarks and the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is met.
...
2013-12-13 - Case Details
See, kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba dba Toshiba Corporation v WUFACAI,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0768; LEGO Juris A/S v Budi Irshandi/Cha Licious,
WIPO Case No. D2012-2343 (for “uk”); Fashions Limited v Australia Karen Millen, Linde Meredith,
WIPO Case No. ...
2013-10-25 - Case Details
D2011-1826 ; SAP AG v. Peifang Huang,
WIPO Case No. D2014-0928; LEGO Juris A/S v. Samuel Olsson,
WIPO Case No. D2012-2390.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has proven the first element of the Policy.
...
2015-03-11 - 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. ...
2015-09-15 - 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. ...
2015-09-15 - Case Details
It submits that the addition of other terms to the disputed domain name should not affect a finding that the dispute domain name in question is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered trademark and cited the decision in LEGO Juris A/S v. Richard Larkins Sets&Reps,
WIPO Case No. D2012-1024, in support of that contention.
...
2013-05-08 - Case Details
There is also a history of prior bad faith findings in the cases involving the Respondent such as LEGO Juris A/S v. Noorinet,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1705; Kshocolat Ltd v. Nurinet,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0577; Key Relocation Center AB v. ...
2015-01-26 - Case Details
En enregistrant le nom de domaine litigieux , le défendeur, résidant en France, ne pouvait pas sérieusement ignorer l’existence de la marque, en sorte la Commission estime que l’enregistrement a été fait de mauvaise foi (Voir,LEGO Juris A/S c. Reiner Stotte,
Litige OMPI No. D2010-0494 et ALSTOM c. Domain Investments LLC,
Litige OMPI No. ...
2016-02-29 - Case Details
For the purpose of assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, the suffix ".com" may generally be disregarded as a generic Top-Level Domain being a necessary component in 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. ...
2016-02-24 - Case Details
Such activities do not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services capable of conferring a right or legitimate interest (see similarly mVisible Technologies, Inc. supra; Robert Bosch GmbH v Asia Ventures, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0946; and LEGO Juris A/S v. J.h.Ryu,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1156).
The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...
2015-07-27 - Case Details
It now appears that there is no server to it so, effectively, it is not being used. However, in Lego Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494, also involving a famous trademark, the panelist referred to the consensus view of the WIPO panel decisions, that “[t]he lack of active use of the domain name does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith”, and that a panel must examine such circumstances as “complainant having a well-known trademark, no response to the complaint, concealment of identity and the impossibility of conceiving a good faith use of the domain name”. ...
2011-04-08 - Case Details
Il ajoute, comme le Requérant le signalait dans sa demande, que le Défendeur est coutumier de la situation et a déjà fait l’objet d’une décision administrative imposant le transfert au demandeur d’un nom de domaine indument enregistré (Lego Juris A/S v. Adrjan Wajdarz,
Litige OMPI No. DFR2010-0016).
7. Décision
Conformément aux articles 20(b) et (c) du Règlement, l’Expert ordonne la transmission au profit du Requérant des noms de domaine et .
...
2011-01-14 - Case Details
The Complaint and all of the accompanying Annexes have been submitted to the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center in English; and
vii) it would be cumbersome and to the Complainant's disadvantage if Complainant was required to translate the Complaint into Chinese. See LEGO Juris A/S v. M. Moench,
WIPO Case No. DNL2009-0052.
Given that i) Respondent’s website is all in English, which shows the intention of marketing to international customers; ii) the pre-dispute correspondence between the Complainant and the Respondent was in English; iii) the Respondent had not taken part in the proceedings, the Panel decides English shall be the language of the present administrative proceedings.
6.2 Substantive elements of the Policy
A. ...
2010-12-08 - 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).
...
2011-04-18 - Case Details