Panels have held that such facts establish a prima facie case under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2011-07-25 - Case Details
In fact, the Second Respondent's proposal to sell the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant for a price that would restore the investment of the Respondents, which exceeds the out-of-pocket expenses associated with the transfer constitutes a classic case of cybersquatting, and is one of the examples provided by the Policy of such circumstances indicating registration and use in bad faith (see LEGO Juris A/S v. n/a, Domain For Sale,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0158, AIB-Vincotte Belgium ASBL, AIB-Vincotte USA Inc. ...
2010-08-09 - Case Details
The Respondent did not exercise its right to respond in these proceedings, and, thus, has failed to rebut the prima facie case made by the Complainants (or advance any other argument supporting rights or legitimate interests) (see, among others, LEGO Juris A/S v. Chung Hong Phil,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1288; Universal City Studios, Inc. v. David Burns and Adam-12 Dot Com,
WIPO Case No. ...
2010-08-09 - Case Details
It is well-established that in cases where the distinctive and prominent element of a domain name is the Complainant's trade mark or service mark, and the only addition is a generic term or numeral that adds no distinctive element, such an addition does not negate the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark: see for example LEGO Juris A/S v. huangderong,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1325 and National Football League v. Alan D. Bachand, Nathalie M. ...
2010-08-05 - Case Details
Rampe Purda / Privacy--Protect.org,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0870; and
- LEGO Juris A/S v. Rampe Purda,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0840;
- Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. and Hewlett-Packard Company v. ...
2010-11-02 - Case Details
There is plenty as authority under the Policy to conclude that confusing similarity is warranted where the domain name embodies the complainant’s mark in its entirety despite the addition of descriptive terms, and even more so where as here, the Complainant’s mark is widely known. See LEGO Juris A/S v. Mohamed Ouattara / Integral Assets Ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0564 and V&S Vin&Sprit AB v. ...
2010-10-29 - Case Details
The addition of descriptive or generic terms to a trademark will generally not distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark and, in appropriate circumstances, may actually increase the likelihood of confusion. LEGO Juris A/S v. Private Registration / Dophe Dot.,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0753. Here, the addition of the generic term “nail polish” to Complainant’s REVLON mark functions to increase the likelihood of confusion because “nail polish” describes one of the products that Complainant is most famous for. ...
2010-12-29 - Case Details
Payam Avarane Khorshid Co. and Nextone Media Limited,
WIPO Case No. DIR2010-0001, and LEGO Juris A/S v. n/a, Domain For Sale,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0158).
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant is required to make a prima facie case of lack of rights or legitimate interest in the disputed Domain Name on part of the Respondent. ...
2011-01-24 - Case Details
The addition of descriptive or generic terms to a trademark will generally not distinguish the contested domain name from the mark and, in appropriate circumstances, may actually increase the likelihood of confusion. LEGO Juris A/S v. Private Registration/Dophe Dot.,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0753. Here, the Panel finds that the addition of the generic term "coupons" to the distinctive and well-known ALMAY trademark does not avoid likelihood of confusion and arguably adds to it.
...
2011-01-11 - Case Details
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent (“Oneandone Private Registration”) has been involved in numerous past cases of cybersquatting and notes the following cases:
Lego Juris A/S v. Floyd Goddard/Oneandone, Private Registration,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0544 (June 9, 2010); Google, Inc. v. ...
2011-02-02 - Case Details
The mere addition of the generic acronym “www” does not eliminate the confusing similarity between the Complainant's marks and the disputed domain name (see LEGO Juris A/S v. Bladimir Boyiko,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0437; The Nasdaq OMX Group, Inc. v. Eli Shoval,
WIPO Case No. ...
2009-06-30 - Case Details
D2003-0859 (“[i]t is well-settled that the use of another’s trademark to sell competitive goods and services is an act of trademark infringement, and cannot under any circumstances be considered to be a bona fide offering of goods and services”); Lego Juris A/S v. Privacy Protect.org/SMVS Consultancy Private Limited,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1094.
The Domain incorporates the Complainant’s Marks and resolves to a website publishing sponsored links to third party websites offering competing or strongly related products to those marketed by the Complainant, including without limitation Autodesk’s 3ds Max® software. ...The “use of [a] Domain Name . . . simply to provide links to web sites (a practice typically engaged in to collect referral fees) cannot be considered . . . a noncommercial use.” See Lego Juris A/S, supra. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name at all times has been commercial given the third party sponsored links that comprise the Respondent’s Website and the singular commercial purpose of the third party websites to which those sponsored links resolve.
...
2012-02-20 - Case Details
In the absence of any license or
permission from the Complainant to use its trademarks, no actual or contemplated bona f ide 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. ...
2025-05-16 - Case Details
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’s business and the Complainant’s Trademark when registering and using the Disputed Domain
Name given the history and extensive use of the Complainant’s Trademark evidenced by the various
trademark registrations that predate the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name, and the
fact that the Complainant’s Trademark is featured on the Respondent’s Website to offer competing services.
...
2025-03-26 - Case Details
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). It is likely that
the Respondent has been fully aware of the Complainant’s Trademark when it registered the Disputed
Domain Name, given the well-known nature of the Complainant’s REGINA MARIA brand, evidenced by the
various trademark registrations for the Complainant’s Trademark that was put into use well before the
Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name.
...
2025-02-21 - Case Details
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 fully aware of the
Complainant and the Complainant’s Trademark when it registered the Disputed Domain Name, given the
well-known nature of the Complainant’s brand, evidenced by the various trademark registrations for the
Complainant’s Trademark across the globe that was put into use well before the Respondent registered the
Disputed Domain Name, as well as the misappropriation of an address on the Respondent’s Website that is
nearly identical to the Complainant’s office address. ...
2025-01-10 - Case Details
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). It is likely that the Respondent has been fully aware of the Complainant and the
Complainant’s Trademark when they registered the Disputed Domain Name, given the well-known nature of
the Complainant’s brand, evidenced by the various trademark registrations for the Complainant’s Trademark
across the globe that was put into use well before the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name.
...
2025-01-06 - Case Details
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 Names
given the well-known nature of the Complainant’s Trademark and the fact that it was put into use well before
the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Names.
...
2025-12-05 - Case Details
Further, the Complainant has submitted evidence that the Respondent has been the subject of a number of
previous UDRP decisions involving similar conduct (e.g., LEGO Holding A/S v. Nawaf Hariri, Salla
Application Company, WIPO Case No. D2025-0313). Also, according to the unrebutted statements of the
Complainant, the Respondent has registered domain names incorporating other famous marks (e.g.,
BARBIE, NIKE, NETFLIX, TWITTER, ZARA). ...
2025-09-08 - 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