The Complainant relies on a number of cases including LEGO Juris A/S v. Transure Enterprise Ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1347, for , , . ...
2011-04-08 - Case Details
Gerardo Saavedra
Sole Panelist
Dated: March 25, 2011
1 Similar situations in LEGO Juris A/S v. Charlie Carmichael,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1507 and in World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. ...
2011-04-07 - Case Details
BusinessService Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1836; LEGO Juris A/S v. Jan Cerny,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0707), decides that the language of the administrative proceedings is English.
5. ...
2010-08-12 - Case Details
To the contrary, the Panel accepts that the addition of the words "hair products" to REVLON to form the Domain Name serves to increase the likelihood of confusion given that hair products are clearly relevant to the Complainant's business. See LEGO Juris A/S v. huangderong,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1325.
The Panel accordingly finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the mark REVLON in which the Complainant has rights, and that element 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2010-09-22 - Case Details
Bad faith can be found when the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’ trademark at the time of registering the Domain Name. See LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494; and Caixa D’Estalvis I Pensions de Barcelona (“La Caixa”) v. ...
2012-07-02 - Case Details
D2000-0306; Diageo Brands B.V., Diageo North America, Inc. and United Distillers Manufacturing, Inc. v. iVodka.com a.k.a. Alec Bargman,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0627; LEGO Juris A/S v. Chainarong Wongkanya,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0737).
Therefore, this Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOYARD trademark.
...
2012-08-08 - Case Details
In previous UDRP decision, bad faith has been found where a domain name is so obviously connected with such 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; and Sanofi-aventis v. Nevis Domains LLC,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-04-20 - Case Details
Karaca Grup Ltd. Sti,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1626; LEGO Juris A/S v. Probuilders,
WIPO Case No. D2011-0226 (respondent’s use of complainant’s own logo implies connection and is not bona fide); Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ...
2012-06-11 - Case Details
Предыдущие административные комиссии пришли к выводу, что в отсутствие лицензии или разрешения от истца на использование его товарных знаков, не может идти речи ни о каком добросовестном или законном использование доменного имени. См., например, LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com, Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2017-07-10 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have found that in the absence of any license or permission from a complainant to use a complainant’s trademarks, generally no bona fide or legitimate use of the domain name could reasonably be claimed. See, LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2017-08-18 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have found that in the absence of any license or permission from a complainant to use that complainant’s trademarks, no bona fide or legitimate use of the domain name could reasonably be claimed. See, LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com, Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2017-09-11 - Case Details
It has been held in previous UDRP decisions that knowledge of a corresponding mark at the time of the domain name’s registration can suggest bad faith. See LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494; Caixa D’Estalvis i Pensions de Barcelona (“La Caixa”) v. ...
2017-05-16 - Case Details
其唯一其余部分为一个通用顶级域名“.top”，可译为“顶”。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）。...
2017-10-31 - Case Details
其唯一其余部分为一个通用顶级域名“.net”，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）。
...
2017-10-30 - Case Details
Prior UDRP panels have held that registering and using domain names which correspond to well-known trademarks may in appropriate circumstances suggest bad faith (LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494; Sanofi-aventis v. Nevis Domains LLC,
WIPO Case No. ...
2017-10-20 - Case Details
其唯一其余部分为一个通用顶级域名".org"。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）。
...
2017-10-18 - Case Details
Par principe, lorsque la marque objet du litige est identifiable au sein du nom de domaine litigieux, l’adjonction d’autres termes (qu’ils soient descriptifs, géographique, sans signification ou autre) n’est pas suffisante pour écarter le risque de confusion (voir LEGO Juris A/S c. DBA David Inc/ DomainsByProxy.com,
Litige OMPI No. D2011-1290).
Plus encore, l’ajout du terme “cmb” qui renvoie à la marque CREDIT MUTUEL DE BRETAGNE dont est titulaire le Requérant, qui l’exploite notamment au travers du nom de domaine , est de nature à renforcer le risque de confusion entre la marque du Requérant et le nom de domaine litigieux, en laissant penser aux clients du Requérant qu’ils sont bien sur le site Internet du Requérant.
...
2018-03-27 - Case Details
It is well established that typically in the absence of any license or permission from a complainant to use the complainant’s trademarks, no bona fide or legitimate use of the domain name could reasonably be claimed. See, LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com, Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2018-03-12 - Case Details
En este sentido véanse anteriores resoluciones, tales como el caso LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
Caso OMPI No. ...
2019-01-09 - Case Details
The Complainant has provided evidence that it owns various trademark registrations in US and China 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. ...
2019-01-09 - Case Details