In the Panel’s view, such conduct cannot be regarded as giving rise to rights or legitimate interests on the part of the Respondent (see, e.g., LEGO Juris A/S v. Andrei Novakovich,
WIPO Case No. D2016-1513).
Considering the above the Panel finds the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...
2019-08-22 - Case Details
UDRP panels found in previous decisions that in the absence of any license or permission from the complainant to use 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. ...
2019-09-18 - Case Details
A gTLD suffix is generally disregarded for the purposes of assessing confusing similarity under 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. ...
2019-07-09 - 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.
...
2013-02-22 - Case Details
Numerous .nl panels have found that a domain name that wholly incorporates a complainant’s registered mark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for the purpose of the Regulations (see, e.g., Stichting VVV Groep Nederland v. C. Henriquez,
WIPO Case No. DNL2008-0040 and LEGO Juris A/S v. Nick Terlouw,
WIPO Case No. DNL2011-0023).
The Domain Name incorporates the entirety of the textual components of the Trade Mark.
...
2012-10-10 - Case Details
The Panel, which notices that to accept the Complainant's argument implies to prove a state of mind by evidence of future conduct, is nonetheless aware that previous UDRP decisions have found bad faith at the time of registration to exist where a domain name is so obviously connected with such a well-known trademark that its very use by someone with no connection with the trademark 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. ...
2012-08-20 - Case Details
Fundacion Private Whois,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0842; LEGO Juris A/S v. Howtogetrealmoneyonline.com,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0832; Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Fundacion Private Whois, Domain Administrator,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-08-13 - Case Details
The name registered by the Respondent, unlike, for example, “Lego” or “Coca-Cola” is a common, everyday word which does not suggest, merely by its use, that the Respondent could only have been attempting to gain a commercial advantage from registering the disputed domain name and thereby trade off the reputation of the Complainant.
...
2012-05-10 - Case Details
DNL2010-0024, in which case the words “specialist” and “shop” were considered descriptive and generic. See also: LEGO Juris A/S v. Nick Terlouw,
WIPO Case No. DNL2011-0023; and Taylor Made Golf Company, Inc. v. Lotom Group S.A.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-02-10 - Case Details
Technology Services Ltd,
WIPO Case No. DNL2008-0002 and LEGO Juris A/S v. M. Moench,
WIPO Case No. DNL2009-0052).
The Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. ...
2012-06-12 - Case Details
The addition of such generic or descriptive term does not eliminate the confusing similarity with the Trademark (see: LEGO Juris A/S v. Nick Terlouw,
WIPO Case No. DNL2011-0023; Taylor Made Golf Company, Inc. v. Lotom Group S.A.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-04-03 - 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”); Karen Millen Fashions Limited v. ...
2014-05-26 - Case Details
As decided in other UDRP cases, "the test of identity or confusing similarity under the Policy is confined to a comparison of the disputed domain name and the trademark alone". LEGO Juris A/S v. Name Administrator, Hong Kong Domains, LLC., supra. See also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2014-11-05 - Case Details
Although the significance of the letters “tg” is unclear, the Panel finds that the OSRAM trademark is “the dominant portion of the domain name”, LEGO Juris A/S v. Domain Tech Enterprises,
WIPO Case No. D2011-2286, and the OSRAM trademark in the Disputed Domain Name represents “the most prominent part of the disputed domain name which will attract consumers’ attention.” ...
2015-09-09 - 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. ...
2015-08-28 - 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 logo and trade mark is clearly designed to imply a connection between the Respondent and the Complainant.
...
2013-05-10 - 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 purportedly the Complainant’s products by the Respondent under the banner of the Complainant’s logo and trade mark is clearly designed to imply a connection between the Respondent and the Complainant.
...
2013-05-08 - Case Details
It has been held in previous 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. ...
2015-06-05 - Case Details
The Panel notes that the Complainant's allegations make out a prima facie case of the Respondent's lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See, LEGO Juris A/S v. Domain Park Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2016-02-02 - Case Details
It has been held in previous UDRP cases that knowledge of a corresponding mark at the time of the domain name 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. ...
2015-04-30 - Case Details