The Panel accepts the Complainant’s suggestion that bad faith can 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 (LEGO Juris A/S v. store24hour,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0091, Caixa D'Estalvis I Pensions de Barcelona (“La Caixa ») v. ...
2015-01-05 - Case Details
Xiaole Zhang, Litige n° D2008-1047; Finter Bank Zurich c. Shumin Peng, Litige n° D2006-0432 ; LEGO Juris A/S c. PrivacyProtect.org / cheng cheng, Litige n° D2012-1613; LeSportsac, Inc. c. Jiamin Zhang a.k.a. hangjiamin z, Litige n° D2012-1542; Vente-privee.com et Vente-privee.com IP S.à.r.l. c. ...
2013-06-21 - Case Details
Mohammad Ali Mokhtari,
WIPO Case No. DIR2010-0007.
2 Similar situations in LEGO Juris A/S v. Charlie Carmichael,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1507 and in OLX Inc. and OLX S.A. v. Anis Ahmad,
WIPO Case No. ...
2013-08-02 - Case Details
As decided in other previous UDRP cases, “the test of identity or confusing similarity under the Policy is confined to a comparison of the disputed domain name and the trademark alone.” LEGO Juris A/S v. Name Administrator, Hong Kong Domains, LLC.,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0924. On a direct comparison, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s KOÇ trademark in spite of such minor variation. ...
2015-07-22 - Case Details
As decided in other UDRP cases, "the test of identity or confusing similarity under the Policy is confined to a comparison of the disputed domain name and the trademark alone". See LEGO Juris A/S v. Name Administrator, Hong Kong Domains, LLC.
WIPO Case No. D2009-0924. On a direct comparison, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's KOÇ trademark in spite of such minor variation. ...
2015-07-21 - Case Details
Considering this, Complainant mentions previous UDRP decisions in which panels found that in the absence of any license or permission from Complainant to use widely-known trademarks, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the domain name could reasonably be claimed (Groupe Auchan v. Gan Yu,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0188; LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2015-07-16 - Case Details
D2008-1047; Finter Bank Zurich c. Shumin Peng,
Litige OMPI No. D2006-0432; LEGO Juris A/S c. cheng cheng,
Litige OMPI No. D2012-1613; LeSportsac, Inc. c. Jiamin Zhang a.k.a. hangjiamin z,
Litige OMPI No. ...
2014-05-15 - Case Details
Thus, numerous UDRP panels have made a finding of bad faith where a complainant's trademark was shown to be well-known or in wide use at the time of registration of the domain name (see LEGO Juris A/S v. store24hou;
WIPO Case No. D2013-0091; Lancôme Parfums et Beauté & Cie, L'Oréal v. 10 Selling,
WIPO Case No. ...
2014-08-21 - Case Details
Belcanto Investment Group,
Caso OMPI No. D2013-1279; LEGO Juris A/S v. Above.com Domain Privacy / Belcanto Investment Group Limited,
Caso OMPI No. D2013-0626; IG Group Limited v. ...
2015-04-16 - Case Details
“linake”部分与投诉人的LINAK商标近似，该部分前五个字母与投诉人的LINAK商标完全相同。另外，许多之前的UDRP案例已表明通用顶级域名与判断争议域名和商标是否相似通常而言无关。(参见LEGO Juris A/S 诉 Zhang Jian, WIPO 案件编号 D2010-0710)。并且，被投诉人并未反对投诉人的上述主张。
基于上述事实，投诉人的投诉请求满足政策第4(a)条的第一个要素。
...
2015-10-13 - Case Details
关于通用顶级域“.com”，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。
...
2017-01-17 - Case Details
此外，"yt"字母位于"yaran"前边，专家组认为这并不具有区别争议域名与投诉人的YARA或雅苒商标的显著效果。
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）。
...
2016-07-05 - Case Details
，WIPO案件编号D2001-0110，）。关于通用顶级域名，专家组认为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）。...
2015-12-04 - Case Details
D2001-1142 (), or combining marks unrelated to the complainant's business, e.g., LEGO Juris A/S v. Suka LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1057 ( and ).
This situation is different. ...
2015-11-30 - Case Details
其唯一其余部分为一个通用顶级域名".site"。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）。...
2015-12-08 - Case Details
其唯一其余部分为一个国家和地区顶级域名“.cc”。专家组认为该国家和地区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）。...
2016-01-11 - Case Details
The very fact that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name establishes opportunistic bad faith registration and use and the Complainant cites, among others, Pharmacia & Upjohn Company v. Moreonline,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0134 and LEGO Juris A/S v. Domain Park Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0138, in order to substantiate its arguments.
...
2016-03-14 - 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. ...
2016-10-05 - Case Details
反而，在本案中该字母可能增加争议域名与投诉人商标之间的混淆性，因为投诉人的商标经常可写为CIALIS®。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)。...
2016-06-08 - Case Details
Incorporation of the SWAROVSKI marks in the Domain Name without any reasonable justification is sufficient evidence of bad faith by the Respondent. See LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494 and Caixa D’Estalvis I Pensions de Barcelona (“La Caixa”) v. ...
2012-07-26 - Case Details