Rampe Purda/Privacy--Protect.org,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0720; LEGO Juris A/S v. Rampe Purda/Privacy--Protect.org,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0840; L’Oréal v. Rampe Purda/Privacy --Protect.org,
WIPO Case No. ...
2011-04-15 - 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. ...
2011-07-19 - 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 names.
...
2012-09-03 - 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) the 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 has not taken part in the proceedings, the panel decides English should be the language of the present administrative proceedings.
6.2 Substantive elements of the Policy
A. ...
2010-12-08 - Case Details
Payam Avarane Khorshid Co. and Nextone Media Limited,
WIPO Case No. DIR2010-0001, and LEGO Juris A/S v. n/a, Domain For Sale,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0158).
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant is required to make a prima facie case of lack of rights or legitimate interest in the disputed Domain Name on part of the Respondent. ...
2010-12-08 - Case Details
In the Complainant's submission the presence of the generic term "pneus" and the focus on commercial links of tires on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, illustrates the Respondent's bad faith, citing the observation of the panelist in LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494 who said that:
"…bad faith is present where a domain domain is so obviously connected with such a well-known product that its very use by someone with no connection with the product suggests opportunistic bad faith".
...
2012-05-22 - Case Details
The Panel notes that previous UDRP decisions have found bad faith at the time of registration to exist where a domain name is so obviously connected with 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. ...
2012-08-16 - Case Details
Bad faith can be found when the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registering the Domain Name. See LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494; and Caixa D’Estalvis I Pensions de Barcelona (“La Caixa”) v. ...
2012-03-28 - Case Details
In 1999, Complainant carried advertisements from more than 3,500 companies, including American Express, Apple, Colgate-Palmolive, Disney, The Gap, Honda, IBM, Lego, Microsoft, Procter & Gamble, Sony, and others.
In 1999, Complainant's revenues were in excess of US$588 million.
...
2000-08-29 - Case Details
A TLD suffix generally has no capacity to dispel confusing similarity 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. ...
2017-05-30 - Case Details
Предыдущие административные комиссии пришли к выводу, что в отсутствие лицензии или разрешения от истца на использование его товарных знаков, не может идти речи ни о каком добросовестном или законном использовании доменного имени. См., например, LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com, Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2017-09-19 - Case Details
D2017-0239 for the domain name ; and LEGO Juris A/S v. Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp. / Maddisyn Fernandes, Fernandes Privacy Holdings,
WIPO Case No. ...
2017-06-13 - Case Details
However, a gTLD suffix generally has no capacity to distinguish a domain name from a trademark for the purposes of comparison 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. ...
2017-08-01 - 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. ...
2017-07-20 - Case Details
Where the Complainant’s mark is so widely known that a respondent cannot credibly claim to have been unaware of the mark, 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 ( and ). ...
2018-05-18 - Case Details
For the purpose of assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, the top-level domain ("TLD") suffixes ".com" and ".net" may generally be disregarded (see LEGO Juris A/S v. Whois Data Protection Sp. z o.o. / Mirek Nowakowski ROSTALCO Sp. z o.o.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2018-05-15 - 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. ...
2018-09-03 - Case Details
Identyczność lub podobieństwo w stopniu wywołującym ryzyko wprowadzenia w błąd odbiorcy
Sporna nazwa domeny jest identyczna z zarejestrowanym przez Powoda znakiem MONFLO, gdyż przyrostek ".com" nie wpływa na ocenę identyczności/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).
...
2017-12-13 - Case Details
The disputed domain name also contains the gTLD suffix “.com” but a gTLD suffix is generally disregarded in the comparison between a domain name and a trademark for the purposes of assessing confusing similarity. 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. ...
2017-11-16 - Case Details
A TLD 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. ...
2018-01-23 - Case Details