Registration
Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, WIPO Case No.
D2019-1991; LEGO Juris A/S v. Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, WIPO Case No.
D2019-2940.
For the reasons set out above, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed
domain name in bad faith and that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is satisfied.
7. ...
2023-06-13 - Case Details
The Complainant has provided evidence that it owns trademark registrations of the CARVANA mark long
before the date that the disputed domain names were 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. ...
2023-06-22 - Case Details
Derhalve stemt de onderhavige domeinnaam op verwarringwekkende wijze overeen met het
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 Zaaknr. DNL2011-0042 en Arie Hendrik den Draak
v. RAPIDE Internet, WIPO Zaaknr. ...
2024-06-10 - Case Details
In
the absence of any license or permission from the Complainant to use its trademarks, the composition of the
disputed domain name, and the fact that the disputed domain name resolves to a look-a-like version of the
Complainant’s website, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain name
could reasonably be claimed (see, e.g., Sportswear Company S.PA. 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. ...
2024-03-21 - Case Details
may be relevant to the determination of this proceeding (see, e.g., LEGO Juris A/S v. Stichting RIBW ZWWF, WIPO Case No.
DNL2011-0042 and Arie Hendrik den Draak v. RAPIDE Internet, WIPO Case No. ...
2024-07-19 - Case Details
Noting the composition of the
disputed domain name, 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. ...
2024-06-17 - Case Details
Also 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 very use by someone with no connection to the trademark suggests opportunistic bad faith (LEGO Juris A/S v. store24hour,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0091; Lancôme Parfums et Beauté & Cie, L’Oréal v. 10 Selling,
WIPO Case No. 2008-0226).
...
2017-07-18 - 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. ...
2017-08-30 - 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. ...
2017-05-16 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have found that in the absence of any license or permission from the complainant to use such a widely-known trademark, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the domain name can reasonably be claimed. See, for example, LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2017-07-19 - Case Details
In previous decisions, Panels found that 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 domain name could reasonably be claimed (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.
...
2018-05-23 - Case Details
The only additional element is the Top-Level Domain ("TLD") suffix ".sale" but a TLD suffix may generally be 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. ...
2017-12-19 - Case Details
D2011-1023 ("The Panel also notes that, as found by other panels, where a domain name is so obviously connected with a well-known product or service, its very use by someone with no connection with the product suggests opportunistic bad faith..."); and LEGO Juris A/S v. XMGlobal Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1168 ("[...] the misappropriation of a well-known trademark as domain name constitutes per se bad faith registration in light of the Policy"). ...
2017-12-11 - Case Details
The disputed domain name also contains the generic Top-Level Domain ("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. ...
2017-10-06 - Case Details
D2015-2175; Dassault (Groupe Industriel Marcel Dassault) v. Ma Xiaojuan,
WIPO Case No. D2015-1733; Lego Juris A/S v. Chen Yong,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1611; Dr. Ing. H.c. F. Porsche AG v. zhanglei,
WIPO Case No. ...
2017-10-03 - Case Details
Where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element (See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and LEGO Juris A/S v. DBA David Inc/ DomainsByProxy.com,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1290).
Therefore, the Panel holds that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks.
...
2018-02-12 - Case Details
A gTLD suffix 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. ...
2018-01-10 - Case Details
For the purpose of assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, the generic TLD suffix ".pro" 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. ...
2017-11-13 - 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. ...
2019-03-05 - Case Details
Partant, il est difficilement concevable que le Défendeur, résident français, ait pu ignorer les droits du Requérant sur la marque SFR et n’ait pas eu cette dernière à l’esprit au moment de l’enregistrement du nom de domaine litigieux, voir Lego Juris A/S c. Reiner Stotte,
Litige OMPI No. D2010-0494.
La Commission administrative observe encore que le nom de domaine litigieux reproduit à l’identique la marque SFR du Requérant en lui ajoutant une suite de lettre “itms” qui, comme il a été évoqué précédemment, n’a pas de signification claire pour le Défendeur lui-même.
...
2018-03-12 - Case Details