The doctrine has also been accepted in cases under the ADR Rules: see, e.g., Lego Juris A/S v. Jeff Fidler, Czech Arbitration Court Case No. 05957, domain name . ...
2017-10-11 - Case Details
The only additional element in each disputed domain name is a TLD suffix, variously “.group”, “.ltd” or “.top”, but a TLD suffix is generally disregarded for the purposes of the comparison of a disputed domain name and 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. ...
2017-11-09 - Case Details
/ Maddisyn Fernandes, Fernandes Privacy Holdings,
WIPO Case No. D2017-0196; LEGO Juris A/S v. Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp. / Maddisyn Fernandes, Fernandes Privacy Holdings,
WIPO Case No. ...
2017-08-31 - Case Details
Given the reputation of the Complainant's mark and the absence of any license or permission from the Complainant, as previous UDRP panels have found in comparable cases, in this case bad faith can be inferred, as no actual or contemplated bone fide or legitimate use of the disputed 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. ...
2017-08-11 - Case Details
Given the reputation of the CARREFOUR, LA BANQUE CARREFOUR and BANQUE CARREFOUR trademarks, registration in opportunistic bad faith can be inferred without any evidence provided by the Respondent to the contrary (see for example, LEGO Juris A/S v. store24hour,
WIPO Case No. Case No. D2013-0091; Lancôme Parfums et Beauté & Cie, L'Oréal v. 10 Selling,
WIPO Case No. ...
2017-07-26 - 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. ...
2018-01-10 - Case Details
Ravi Gurnani Gurnani,
Caso OMPI No. DES2006-0001; LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
Caso OMPI No. ...
2018-01-10 - Case Details
A gTLD suffix generally has no capacity to dispel confusing similarity with a trademark either. 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. ...
2018-11-12 - Case Details
The Panel will have to establish whether the Complainants’ case meets the requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. See LEGO Juris A/S v. NyunHwa Jung,
WIPO Case No. D2012-1233; Charabot SA v. Name Redacted,
WIPO Case No. D2018-0339.
...
2018-10-15 - Case Details
In the absence of any license or
permission from the Complainant to use its trademarks, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate
use of the disputed domain name could reasonably be claimed (see, e.g., Sportswear Company S.P.A. v.
Tang Hong, WIPO Case No. D2014-1875; and LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith,
Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master, WIPO Case No. ...
2025-06-12 - Case Details
Panels have previously held that a finding of bad faith can be established where a complainant’s trademark
is shown to be well-known or in wide use at the time of registration of the disputed domain name (see LEGO
Juris A/S v. store24hour, WIPO Case No. D2013-0091). The Respondent must have been aware of the
Complainant and the Complainant’s Trademark when registering and using the Disputed Domain Name
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?...
2025-06-03 - Case Details
A party that wishes a change of language – in this case only the Response is in Dutch – should substantiate that it would be unreasonably onerous if the submission were to be in English (e.g. LEGO Juris A/S v. M. Moench,
WIPO Case No. DNL2009-0052). The Respondent has motivated its request for a translation of the Complaint by stating that its command of English is insufficient to understand the Complaint. ...
2020-07-21 - Case Details
All disputed domain names also include the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix “.com” but a gTLD suffix does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between a domain name and a trademark for the purposes of the first element 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. ...
2019-01-14 - Case Details
This disruption is a further indicator of use in bad faith. See LEGO Juris A/S v. Aamir Abdul Wahid, Spiro Line Media,
WIPO Case No. D2019-0245.
(v) The Respondent’s website seems to violate the TikTok application’s terms of service, which in the circumstances of this case, and noting the use of the disputed domain name, further supports the Panel’s finding on the Respondent’s bad faith. ...
2021-07-06 - Case Details
Bad faith may be found where a domain name is so obviously connected with a well-known trademark that said use of the domain name 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. ...
2021-01-08 - 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 / Protection of Private Person,
WIPO Case No. D2016-1513).
Furthermore, the Respondent has no right or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name resolving to an inactive website at the time of this decision (see, e.g., Philip Morris USA Inc. v. ...
2021-03-04 - Case Details
Bad faith may be found where a domain name is so obviously connected with a well-known trademark that said use of the domain name 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. ...
2020-03-02 - Case Details
Prior panels have held that such registration and use of a domain that incorporates a complainant’s trademark to advertise and link to another commercial website to sell a complainant’s goods and/or the goods of a complainant’s competitors constitutes bad faith. See LEGO Juris A/S v. Whois Privacy Protection Service by VALUE- DOMAIN / Kazuhiko Seki,
WIPO Case No. D2016-1080; BISSELL Homecare, Inc. v. ...
2019-05-27 - Case Details
In addition, the fact that the disputed domain name leads to sponsored links is likely to attract customers to the Respondent’s website and resulting in commercial gain for the Respondent (LEGO Juris A/S v. Moustafa Mahmoud,
WIPO Case No. D2012-2047).
Furthermore, by use of a domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, the Respondent is trading on the value established by the Complainant in its marks to attract Internet users and thereby deriving economic benefit from either those users attracted to the Respondent’s website or by receiving compensation from others if these would-be customers are routed elsewhere. ...
2019-05-24 - Case Details
A gTLD suffix may generally be disregarded in the 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. ...
2019-05-13 - Case Details