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
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
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
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
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
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
The Complainant has provided evidence that it owns various trademark registrations worldwide and in China 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. ...
2019-05-21 - 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
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. ...
2019-01-28 - Case Details
Above.com Domain Privacy / Belcanto Investment Group Limited,
WIPO Case No. D2018-0487; LEGO Juris A/S v. Park KyeongSook,
WIPO Case No. D2016-1195; see also WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4. ...
2020-05-20 - 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. ...
2019-08-12 - 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