Previous UDRP panels have ruled that the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) suffix generally has no capacity to distinguish a domain name from a trademark (See Dassault (Groupe Industriel Marcel Dassault) v. Ma Xiaojuan,
WIPO Case No. D2015-1733,); Lego Juris A/S v. Chen Yong,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1611; Dr. Ing. H.c. F. Porsche AG v. zhanglei,
WIPO Case No. ...
2016-04-11 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have ruled that country code Top-Level Domain ("ccTLD") suffix generally has no capacity to distinguish a domain name from a trademark (see Dassault (Groupe Industriel Marcel Dassault) v. Ma Xiaojuan,
WIPO Case No. D2015-1733,; Lego Juris A/S v. Chen Yong,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1611; Dr. Ing. H.c. F. Porsche AG v. zhanglei,
WIPO Case No. ...
2016-03-30 - Case Details
其唯一其余部分为一个通用顶级域名".love"。关于通用顶级域名，专家组认为该部分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）。...
2016-03-24 - Case Details
These allegations make out a prima facie case of lack of rights or legitimate interests, which Respondent has not rebutted. See LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2016-12-06 - Case Details
The other additional element in the disputed domain name is the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix “.com” but a gTLD suffix is generally disregarded in a comparison 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. ...
2016-12-02 - Case Details
其唯一其余部分为一个通用顶级域名".pub"。专家组认为该通用顶级域名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）。...
2015-12-18 - Case Details
其唯一其余部分为一个通用顶级域名".wang"，可译为 "网"。专家组认为该通用顶级域名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）。...
2015-12-16 - Case Details
A gTLD suffix generally 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. ...
2016-01-14 - Case Details
A gTLD suffix or a ccTLD suffix generally 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. ...
2016-08-03 - Case Details
A gTLD suffix generally 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. ...
2016-07-22 - Case Details
The Panel finds that the use of the Domain Name to divert Internet traffic to a scam or a phishing scheme is not a bona fide offering of goods or services.”); LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2016-07-22 - Case Details
Finally, the addition of “.info”, a gTLD suffix, is non-distinctive and is typically without significance when assessing the identity or confusing similarity of a domain name to a complainant’s prior trade mark rights. See, LEGO Juris A/S v Mariusz Zielezny,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0796.
In the light of the foregoing, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2016-07-22 - Case Details
A gTLD suffix generally 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. ...
2016-05-24 - Case Details
Jan-Iver Levsen, LEVSEN.N.O.V.A. e.K., Case No. D2015-0069 for “.limo” and LEGO Juris A/S v. Jack Hollingsworth,
WIPO Case No. D2015-0081 for “.london”). In fact, in the case at hand, Internet users will not only adjudge the new TLDs ”.bid” and “.accountant” its undisputed technical function. ...
2016-09-06 - Case Details
However, a gTLD suffix generally has no capacity to distinguish a domain name from a trademark for the purposes of a comparison 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. ...
2016-11-24 - Case Details
Bad faith has already been established 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 (LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494; Sanofi-aventis v. Nevis Domains LLC,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-11-20 - Case Details
For example, a case involving the domain name held that “[t]he addition of a number does not serve sufficiently to distinguish or differentiate the disputed domain name from the Complainant's trademark.” (LEGO Juris A/S v. huangderong,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1325). Combining a trademark with abbreviations to form a domain name also does not avoid a likelihood of confusion. ...
2011-05-26 - Case Details
Back To Bed, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0106 and LEGO Juris A/S v. J.h.Ryu,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1156).
Finally, there is no evidence that Respondents are making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name.
...
2012-02-16 - Case Details
Dans de nombreuses décisions UDRP des commissions administratives de l’OMPI ont par le passé considéré que la connaissance par le défendeur des droits de propriété intellectuelle du requérant au moment de l’enregistrement du nom de domaine litigieux, ou tout du moins du fait que le défendeur aurait pu avoir connaissance de ces droits, constitue un indice de la mauvaise foi au moment de l’enregistrement (cf. LEGO Juris A/S contre Reiner Stotte,
Litige OMPI No. D2010-0494)
La Commission administrative, en suivant cette jurisprudence UDRP, estime par conséquent que le nom de domaine litigieux a été enregistré de mauvaise foi.
...
2012-01-03 - Case Details
The Panel finds that the Respondent’s knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain names suggests bad faith, LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494. It therefore follows that the Respondent, at the time of registration, has been aware that use of the disputed domain names would result in a violation of the Complainant’s trademark rights, Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2012-08-29 - Case Details