Where a domain name is so obviously connected with a trademark, its very use by someone with no connection to the trademark suggests opportunistic bad faith (see, e.g., LEGO Juris A/S v. store24hour;
WIPO Case No. D2013-0091; LANCOME PARFUMS ET BEAUTE & CIE, L’OREAL v. 10 Selling,
WIPO Case No. ...
2020-07-16 - 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.
...
2020-12-02 - Case Details
In addition, it has been held in previous UDRP cases that knowledge of a corresponding mark at the time of the domain name’s registration suggests bad faith (LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494; Caixa D’Estalvis I Pensions de Barcelona (“La Caixa”) v. ...
2020-10-21 - 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. ...
2021-07-12 - Case Details
A number of these include or are based on famous trademarks including O2, Sky, Lego, and VISA.
5. Discussion and Findings
No response has been filed. The Complaint and Written Notice have been sent, however, to the Respondent at the electronic and physical coordinates confirmed as correct by the Registrar in accordance with paragraph 2(a) of the Rules. ...
2021-02-26 - 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
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
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
Kieran McGarry,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0629. Additionally, in LEGO Juris A/S v. Matthew Griffith, Merlix LLC, Domain Administrator,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0443 involving the domain name , it was held that the term “builder” should be disregarded for the purpose of this analysis.
...
2014-09-12 - Case Details
The addition of “.com”, a gTLD suffix, is non-distinctive and is without legal significance when assessing the identity or confusing similarity of a domain name to a complainant’s prior trade mark rights. See, for example, LEGO Juris A/S v Mariusz Zielezny,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0796.
Further, given that the disputed domain name has been used in relation to an email scam, the Respondent obviously considered the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the ABB trademark. ...
2014-11-21 - Case Details
H. van Zuylen Materieel,
WIPO Case No. DNL2011-0073; LEGO Juris A/S v. Nick Terlouw,
WIPO Case No. DNL2011-0023; Taylor Made Golf Company, Inc. v. Lotom Group S.A.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2013-09-24 - Case Details
Nokiagirls.com a.k.a. IBCC,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0102; LEGO Juris A/S v. Masayuki Sato,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1639).
Therefore, this Panel finds that each disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the TARINGA mark.
...
2013-01-23 - 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 SA v. Noori.net,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1553; Credit Industriel et Commercial SA v. ...
2013-02-04 - Case Details
Bad faith has already been found where a domain name is so obviously connected with a well-known trademark that its very use by someone with no connection with the trademark suggests opportunistic bad faith (LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494; Sanofi-aventis v. Nevis Domains LLC,
WIPO Case No. ...
2013-04-10 - Case Details
Further, where the distinctive and prominent element of a domain name is the complainant’s mark and the only addition is a generic term that adds no distinctive element, such an addition does not negate the confusing similarity between the domain name at issue and the mark (See LEGO Juris A/S v. huangderong,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1325; National Football League v. Alan D. Bachand, Nathalie M. ...
2013-08-21 - Case Details
Bad faith is found where a domain name is so obviously connected with a well-known trademark that its very use by someone with no connection with the trademark suggests opportunistic bad faith and this clearly is the present case (see LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494; Sanofi-aventis v. Nevis Domains LLC,
WIPO Case No. ...
2013-10-16 - Case Details
Given the reputation of the UNIROYAL trademark, the Panel agrees that the Respondent’s bad faith registration is inferred. See LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494; Lancôme Parfums et Beauté & Cie, L’Oréal v. 10 Selling,
WIPO Case No. ...
2014-03-06 - Case Details
Further, use of the word “brands” in two of the Disputed Domain Names does nothing to reduce confusing similarity. See, e.g., LEGO Juris A/S v. Phoenix Productions,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0798 (transfer of and ).
...
2013-10-28 - 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
Previous UDRP panels have found that where a domain name is so obviously connected with a well-known trademark its very use by someone with no connection to the trademark suggests opportunistic bad faith. LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494, Sanofi-Aventis v. Nevis Domains LLC.
WIPO Case No. ...
2014-04-14 - Case Details