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
If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. (see, e.g. LEGO Juris A/S v. Anton Obrezkov,
WIPO Case No. DUA2020-0001).
Noting the facts and allegations listed above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established prima facie that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...
2020-08-18 - 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
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
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 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
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
In the Panel’s view, such conduct cannot be regarded as giving rise to rights or legitimate interests on the part of the Respondent to register and use the disputed domain name (see, e.g., LEGO Juris A/S v. Andrei Novakovich,
WIPO Case No. D2016-1513).
The Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name on a website offering overlapping services is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy. ...
2020-11-04 - 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
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
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. ...
2020-09-09 - 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