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
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
The Respondent had been involved in a number of UDRP cases because of registering domain names reproducing or incorporating third party trademarks, such as LEGO Juris A/S c. Chen Wenjie,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1286; Microsoft Corporation v. chen wenjie / Private Whois Service, NAF Claim No. ...
2018-04-10 - 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 such as “.com” has no capacity to distinguish a domain name from a trademark. 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. ...
2018-05-02 - 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. ...
2018-05-01 - 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
A gTLD suffix is generally incapable of preventing 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. ...
2018-12-03 - Case Details
D2017-2521)
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 technical 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. ...
2018-11-21 - Case Details
It follows that the Complainant has to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights to or legitimate interests in the Domain Name (see, e.g., Lego Juris A/S v. Moensch,
WIPO Case No. DNL2009-0052; Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2018-11-16 - Case Details
It follows that the Complainant has to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights to or legitimate interests in the Domain Name (see, e.g., Lego Juris A/S v. Moensch,
WIPO Case No. DNL2009-0052; Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2018-11-16 - Case Details
Such registration and use must be considered to be in bad faith; see, for example, LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2018-11-07 - 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
Prior UDPR cases have already found this word to be considered as generic and therefore not able to exclude the similarity (see LEGO Juris A/S v. abi wada / WhoisGuard,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1693; Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v. Andri Supriyanto,
WIPO Case No. ...
2018-06-29 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have found that in the absence of any license or permission from a complainant to use that complainant’s trademarks, no bona fide or legitimate use of the domain name could reasonably be claimed. See, LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com, Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2019-11-13 - Case Details
DBR2013-0010; Globex Utilidades S/A (Globex) e Nova Pontocom Comércio Eletrônico S/A (Nova Pontocom) v. André Ribeiro,
Caso OMPI No. DBR2012-0012; Lego System A/S v. Omar Quadros Motta,
Caso OMPI No. DBR2014-0001; e Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. - Petrobras v. ...
2019-04-16 - 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. ...
2019-03-25 - 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. ...
2019-03-25 - Case Details
Consequently, the addition of the term “surround” in the Disputed Domain Name does not detract from the trademark LIBTAYO and does not therefore reduce the confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the LIBTAYO mark. See, e.g., LEGO Juris A/S v. sakchai srion,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0604.
Hence, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2019-02-01 - Case Details