Thilak Raj, Net Jobs,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0033; and LEGO Juris A/S v. Private, Registration/Dohe Dot,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0753.
Accordingly the Panel finds that the Complainant has established element 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2010-08-02 - Case Details
Further and in any event, for the registrar to allow domain names to be registered in the name of a “privacy service” which provides no mechanism or predictable practice for disclosure of the underlying registrant in the course of proceedings under the Policy, threatens to undermine the integrity of the Policy.
6.6 The reasons for this were set out in detail by this Panel LEGO Juris A/S v. Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. / Domains Secured, LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1857. ...viii) It would therefore appear, inter alia, as a consequence of these decisions, the Registrar must have known or ought to have known that registrations in the name of Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft did not accurately record the identity of the registrant of the domain name.
(ix) For the reasons set out in LEGO Juris A/S v. Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. / Domains Secured, LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1857, for a registrar to knowingly allow a third party such as Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft to engage in such conduct raises a question as to whether the registrar is in breach of the paragraph 3.7.8 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (“RAA”) between it and ICANN. ...
2012-03-22 - Case Details
Please
see (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. ...
2025-08-14 - Case Details
behoeft de Geschillenbeslechter op dit element niet verder in te
gaan.
1 Aangezien de Regeling verregaand is gebaseerd op de Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”), is het vaste
jurisprudentie dat zaken die zijn beslist op grond van zowel de Regeling als de UDRP en dus WIPO Overview 3.0 relevant zijn voor
deze procedure (zie bijvoorbeeld LEGO Juris A/S v. Stichting RIBW ZWWF, WIPO Case No. DNL2011-0042 en Arie Hendrik den Draak
v. RAPIDE Internet, WIPO Zaaknr. ...
2025-07-18 - Case Details
It is also pertinent to note that the Complainant has established that the Respondent has demonstrated a
pattern of bad faith conduct because the Respondent was also found in bad faith in LEGO Holding A/S v.
John Deecon, TrafficDomains INC, WIPO Case No. D2025-0497.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.
7. ...
2025-05-19 - 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
f inding bad faith registration and use of a domain name. See LEGO Juris A/S v. Eveline Christiany, WIPO
Case No. D2011-2294.
For these reasons, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established this third element under the Policy.
7. ...
2024-04-24 - Case Details
Technology Services Ltd., WIPO Zaaknr. DNL2008-0002; en LEGO Juris A/S v. M.
Moench, WIPO Zaaknr. DNL2009-0052). Indien de Eiseres hieraan voldoet, dan rust de bewijslast op de
Verweerster om aan te tonen dat zij wel een recht heeft op of legitiem belang bij de onderhavige
domeinnaam.
...
2025-02-17 - Case Details
In connection with the burden of proof, several decisions of UDRP panels have held that “[o]nce a Complainant establishes prima facie showing that none of the three circumstances establishing legitimate interests or rights applies, the burden of production on this factor shifts to the Respondents to rebut the showing.” See LEGO Juris A/S v. Chung Hong Phil,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1288; Ets Leobert, SARL v. Jeonggon Seo,
WIPO Case No. ...
2011-11-14 - Case Details
This does not alter the overall impression of the disputed domain name and does not take away the Panel’s finding that the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s OAKLEY marks are confusingly similar (e.g. LEGO Juris A/S v. Mike Morgan,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0438).
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy requires that the Complainant demonstrates that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...
2011-11-10 - Case Details
Thilak Raj, Net Jobs,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0033; and LEGO Juris A/S v. Private, Registration / Dohe Dot,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0753.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which it has rights. ...
2011-03-17 - 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 om aan te tonen dat hij wel degelijk een recht op of legitiem belang bij de Domeinnaam heeft.
...
2020-07-13 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar
For the purpose of assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, the 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. ...
2020-07-10 - Case Details
The Complainant has provided evidence that it owns trademark registrations long before the disputed domain names were registered and that it is not affiliated with nor has it licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Complainant’s Marks (see LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2020-06-18 - Case Details
The Complainant has provided evidence that it owns numerous trademark registrations in many jurisdictions long before the disputed domain name was registered and that it has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Complainant’s VRBO mark (see LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2020-04-24 - Case Details
Weslley Seabra Vargas,
Caso OMPI No. DBR2020-0004; Lego System A/S v. Omar Quadros Motta,
Caso OMPI No. DBR2014-0001; e Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. - Petrobras v. ...
2021-06-03 - 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. ...
2021-05-26 - Case Details
The Complainant has provided evidence that it owns trademark registrations in Australia and the United States of America before the disputed domain name was registered (See LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2019-12-11 - 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. ...
2021-04-30 - Case Details
A gTLD may generally be disregarded in the comparison between a domain name and a trademark for the purposes of the Policy. 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. ...
2020-11-06 - Case Details
The Complainant has provided evidence that it owned trademark registrations of the VENETA CUCINE mark
before the date that the disputed domain name was registered and that the Complainant 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. ...
2023-05-05 - Case Details