Bad faith may be 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. See LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494; Sanofi-Aventis v. Nevis Domains, LLC,
WIPO Case No. ...
2015-06-26 - Case Details
D2011-2197 finding “the use of the added descriptive word does not change the overall impression of the domain name.” See also LEGO Juris A/S v. legooutlet.info Dot InFo, legooutlet.info,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0351, ACCOR Société Anonyme v. ...
2014-08-29 - Case Details
Regarding the disputed domain names and , the Panel finds the use of the generic words “broadband” and “customer care” with the trademark does not lessen the confusing similarity with the mark. See Lego Juris A/S v. Frank Park / Privacy Protection Services INC d/b/a Privacy Protection.org,
WIPO Case No. ...
2014-07-28 - Case Details
Lastly, there is a history of prior bad faith findings in cases involving the Respondent, for example, LEGO Juris A/S v. Noori net,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1705; Banco Bradesco S.A. v. Noori net,
WIPO Case No. ...
2014-01-20 - 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).
Noting the risk of implied affiliation between the confusingly similar disputed domain name and the well-
known trademark of the Complainant, the Panel finds that there is no plausible fair use to which the disputed
domain name could be put that would not have the effect of being somehow connected to the Complainant
(see, e.g., Instagram, LLC v. ...
2022-06-24 - Case Details
The Complainant provided evidence that it owns trademark registrations of the MODERNA Marks long
before the date that 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 trademarks (see LEGO Juris A/S
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 5
v. ...
2022-07-05 - Case Details
In the Panel’s view, the Respondent’s use of the Complainant’s mark and logo to purportedly offer products
and services similar to the Complainant’s products and services creates a misleading impression of affiliation
and does not amount to a fair use of the Disputed Domain Name (see LEGO Juris A/S v. Domain
Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org and Sun Chong, WIPO Case No. D2019-2263).
...
2022-05-27 - Case Details
The Complainant has provided evidence that it owns trademark registrations long before the date that 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.
...
2022-04-12 - Case Details
The Complainant has provided evidence that it owns trademark registrations of the GENENTECH 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. ...
2023-08-08 - Case Details
Previous decisions issued under the UDRP have recognized that actual knowledge of a complainant’s
trademarks and activities at the time of the registration of a disputed domain names may raise an inference
of bad faith: (LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte, WIPO Case No. D2010-0494; Caixa D’Estalvis I Pensions de
Barcelona (« La Caixa ») v. ...
2023-01-09 - Case Details
The Complainant provided evidence that it owned the TROJANUV
trademark registrations long before the date that 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. ...
2022-12-08 - Case Details
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0119.html
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 5
The Complainant has provided evidence that it owns trademark registrations of the BUILD-A-BEAR and
BUILDABEAR.COM marks long before the date that the disputed domain name was registered and that the
Complainant is not affiliated with nor has it licensed or otherwise authorised 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. ...
2023-11-03 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that the addition of a descriptive term or a hypen to a domain name that incorporates a trademark in its entirety does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See LEGO Juris A/S v. DBA David Inc/ DomainsByProxy.com,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1290.
The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainants’ PRAMET mark combined with the gTLD “.net”.
...
2022-01-19 - Case Details
The Complainant provided evidence that it owned the PROCTORIO
trademark registrations long before the date that 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. ...
2023-01-13 - Case Details
The Respondent has been found by previous panels decisions under the Policy to have engaged in a pattern
of registering domain names to prevent the owners of marks from registering them. See LEGO Juris A/S v.
HEMANG INFRASRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED / PrivacyProtect.org, Domain Admin, WIPO Case No.
...
2023-02-10 - Case Details
D2021-0774; Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. Milen Radumilo,
WIPO Case No. DCO2020-0090; LEGO Juris A/S v. ken Teo,
WIPO Case No. D2020-2380; Sanofi v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Todd Peter,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-10-18 - Case Details
These allegations make out a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, which Respondent has not rebutted. See, e.g., LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-10-11 - Case Details
The Complainant has provided evidence that it owns trademark registrations of the CARREFOUR mark long
before the date that 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. ...
2022-07-15 - Case Details
UDRP panels have found that a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark where the disputed domain name incorporates the complainant’s trademark in its entirety (e.g., Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. Milen Radumilo,
WIPO Case No. DCO2020-0090; LEGO Juris A/S v. ken Teo,
WIPO Case No. D2020-2380; Sanofi v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Todd Peter,
WIPO Case No. ...
2022-01-12 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has met its burden of establishing that the disputed
domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
3 The Panel, under its general powers, has consulted the public Internet archive WayBackMachine in connection to the Complainant’s
corporate website at “wwww.sudocrem.com”, finding various captures of this site since 2003 until 2023.
3 Other cases related to the same Respondent are: Laboratoires Thea v. Liu Fen, WIPO Case No. DCO2022-0119; LEGO Juris A/S v.
LIU FEN, WIPO Case No. D2023-0069; Boursorama S.A. v. Liu Fen, WIPO Case No. DCO2022-0108; IIC-INTERSPORT International
Corporation GmbH v. ...
2023-04-05 - Case Details