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. ...
2019-08-12 - Case Details
Moreover, in the Panel’s view, based also on the Complainant’s extensive use of the PROMONTORY Marks in connection with goods and services in the United States, the Respondent must have been aware of the PROMONTORY Marks when the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. Just like the panel in LEGO Juris A/S v. Danaka Tarou,
WIPO Case No. D2015-0315, the Panel in this case finds that the only credible explanation for the use of the disputed domain name is to capitalize on the similarity between it and the Complainant’s distinctive and well-known PROMONTORY Marks.
...
2019-08-09 - Case Details
，WIPO案件编号D2001-0110）。关于通用顶级域名，专家组认为在本案中亦不具有任何区别争议域名与投诉人商标的效果（参见LEGO Juris A/S 诉 Chen Yong，WIPO案件编号D2009-1611及Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG 诉 zhanglei，WIPO案件编号D2014‑0080）。
...
2019-06-26 - Case Details
The Complainant adds that the disputed domain name which reproduced the Complainant’s highly distinctive VOLTAREN Trademark which has no regular meaning and associating the said VOLTAREN Trademark to a webpage commercializing the VOLTAREN drug clearly demonstrate the Respondent’s intention to rely on the attractiveness of the Complainant’s VOLTAREN Trademark to divert Internet traffic to its website as it has been held by prior panels that such connection of a well-known trademark in a domain name suggests opportunistic bad faith. See LEGO Juris A/S store24 hour,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0091. Furthermore, the Complainant submits that in view of the Complainant VOLTAREN’s Trademark registration predating considerably the registration of the disputed domain name, as well as its extensive international use, such facts as recognized by previous panels established the knowledge of the Complainant’s Trademark rights when the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. ...
2019-06-07 - 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. ...
2019-06-04 - 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. ...
2019-06-19 - Case Details
Furthermore, the Complainant asserts that prior panels have found that in the absence of any license or permission from the Complainant to use a widely-known trademark, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the domain name could reasonably be claimed (LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master
WIPO Case No. ...
2019-10-14 - 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 trademark (see LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2019-10-03 - 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 MOTUL mark (see LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2020-03-12 - Case Details
UDRP panels found in previous decisions that in the absence of any license or permission from the Complainant to use widely known 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. ...
2020-03-24 - Case Details
The Complainant has provided evidence that it owns numerous trademark registrations before the disputed domain name was registered and that it has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Complainant’s IQOS mark (see LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2020-03-19 - Case Details
ii) The Respondent’s failure to reply to the cease and desist letter sent by the Complainant is further evidence of bad faith, given all the other circumstances of this case. See LEGO Juris A/S v Thai Dang,
WIPO Case No. D2018-1929.
(iii) The Panel is also satisfied that the listing of the disputed domain name for sale on domain aftermarket sites constitutes evidence of bad faith use. ...
2020-03-16 - Case Details
Under such circumstances previous Panels accepted the language of the proceeding to be English (see, e.g., LEGO Juris A/S v. Satoru Nakamura,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0682).
The Panel further notes that no objection was made by the Respondent to the proceeding being in English nor any request made that the proceedings be conducted in Russian, the language of the Registration Agreement. ...
2020-01-29 - 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 KOHLER mark (see LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2020-01-28 - Case Details
The addition of ‘shop’ to the trademark … can therefore evoke the activity of the companies of the Complainant’s group”); LEGO Juris A/S v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Neckar Rhein,
WIPO Case No. D2017-2276 (“the addition of the word ‘shop’ adds no distinctiveness and does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity.”) ...
2020-01-28 - Case Details
He is also the respondent of other UDRP cases (e.g.,
LEGO Juris A/S v. 石磊 (Lei Shi), WIPO Case No. D2024-1663; Equifax Inc. v. 石磊 (Lei Shi), WIPO Case
No. ...
2025-06-13 - Case Details
case=D2000-0403
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 5
Panels have previously held that a finding of bad faith can be established where a complainant’s trademark
is shown to be well-known or in wide use at the time of registration of the disputed domain name (see LEGO
Juris A/S v. store24hour, WIPO Case No. D2013-0091). The Respondent must have been aware of the
Complainant and the Complainant’s Trademark when registering and using the Disputed Domain Name
given the well-known nature of the Complainant’s Trademark in its industry and the fact that it was put into
use well before the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name. ...
2025-07-23 - Case Details
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 5
Panels have previously held that a finding of bad faith can be established where a complainant’s trademark
is shown to be well known or in wide use at the time of registration of the disputed domain name (see LEGO
Juris A/S v. store24hour, WIPO Case No. D2013-0091). The Respondent must have been aware of the
Complainant and the Complainant’s Trademark when registering and using the Disputed Domain Name
given the well-known nature of the Complainant’s Trademark in its industry and the fact that it was put into
use well before the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name. ...
2025-07-08 - Case Details
In the absence of any license or
permission from the Complainant to use its trademarks, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate
use of the disputed domain name could reasonably be claimed (see, e.g., Sportswear Company S.P.A. v.
Tang Hong, WIPO Case No. D2014-1875; and LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith,
Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master, WIPO Case No. ...
2025-07-07 - Case Details
The Panel finds that the Respondent’s conduct in failing to respond to the cease-and-desist letter supports
its finding of bad faith (see LEGO Juris A/S v. Colin Heggie, WIPO Case No. D2011-1304).
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?...
2025-10-22 - Case Details