The Complainant has provided evidence that it owns numerous trademark registrations in multiple jurisdictions before the disputed domain names were registered and that it has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademarks. See LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2018-09-26 - Case Details
参见WIPO Overview 3.0，第3.3节；Telstra Corporation Limited 诉 Nuclear Marshmallows，WIPO案件编号D2000-0003和LEGO Juris A/S 诉 lihailiang，WIPO 案件编号 DSO2011-0002。WIPO Overview 3.0的第3.3节进而要求专家组必须考察各种情况以认定被投诉人的行为是否具有恶意，并列举了几种可被视为恶意的情况，包括：(i) 投诉人商标的独特性或知名度，(ii) 被投诉人未作出答辩或提供任何实际或经得起考验的善意使用的证据，(iii) 被投诉人隐瞒身份，或使用的虚假联系方式（违反其注册协议），以及(iv) 不具诚实使用或善意使用域名的可能性等。
...
2018-11-30 - 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. ...
2018-11-21 - Case Details
鉴于此，专家组决定接受投诉人所提交的英文版投诉书及相关材料，不要求投诉人提供中文翻译文本，但是专家组决定使用中文作出本案裁决。专家组认为这一决定并不会给当事人造成不公平且能促使行政程序高效及经济地进行。参见 LEGO Juris A/S 诉 Zhong Huijie, WIPO 案件编号 D2011-1381。
6.2 分析与认定
根据政策第4条(a)项的规定，投诉书必须同时符合以下三个要素，才能胜诉。
...
2018-05-29 - Case Details
“In the absence of any license or permission from the complainant to use its trademark, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the Domain Names 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. ...
2018-05-29 - Case Details
鉴于此，专家组决定接受投诉人所提交的英文版投诉书及相关材料，不要求投诉人提供中文翻译文本，但是专家组决定使用中文作出本案裁决。专家组认为这一决定并不会给当事人造成不公平且能促使行政程序高效及经济地进行。参见 LEGO Juris A/S 诉 Zhong Huijie, WIPO 案件编号 D2011-1381。
6.2 实质性问题
根据政策第4条(a)项的规定，投诉书必须同时符合以下三个要素，才能胜诉。
...
2019-02-08 - 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. ...
2018-12-26 - Case Details
Prior panels have held 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; Lancôme Parfums et Beauté & Cie, L’Oréal v. 10 Selling,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-04-12 - Case Details
Sportswear Company S.PA. v. Tang Hong WIPO Case No. D2014-1875; LEGO Juris A/S v.
DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master, WIPO
Case No. ...
2022-09-26 - Case Details
参见WIPO Overview 3.0，第3.3节；Telstra Corporation Limited 诉 Nuclear Marshmallows，WIPO案件编号D2000-0003和LEGO Juris A/S 诉 lihailiang，WIPO 案件编号 DSO2011-0002。WIPO Overview 3.0的第3.3节进而要求专家组必须考察各种情况以认定被投诉人的行为是否具有恶意，并列举了几种可被视为恶意的情况，包括：(i) 投诉人商标的独特性或知名度，(ii) 被投诉人未作出答辩或提供任何实际或经得起考验的善意使用的证据，(iii) 被投诉人隐瞒身份，或使用虚假的联系方式（违反其注册协议），以及(iv) 不具由善意使用域名的可能性等。
...
2021-01-22 - Case Details
Such awareness of the Complainant’s trademark suggests bad faith (see LEGO Juris A/S v. Domains by Proxy, Inc., DomainsByProxy.com / DBA David Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1839; Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP v. ...
2021-03-10 - Case Details
Such awareness of the Complainant’s trademark suggests bad faith (see LEGO Juris A/S v. Domains by Proxy, Inc., DomainsByProxy.com / DBA David Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1839; Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP v. ...
2021-03-10 - Case Details
Such awareness of the Complainant’s trademark suggests bad faith (see LEGO Juris A/S v. Domains by Proxy, Inc., DomainsByProxy.com / DBA David Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1839; Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP v. ...
2021-03-10 - Case Details
Such awareness of the Complainant’s trademark suggests bad faith (see LEGO Juris A/S v. Domains by Proxy, Inc., DomainsByProxy.com / DBA David Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1839; Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP v. ...
2021-03-10 - Case Details
Such awareness of the Complainant’s trademark suggests bad faith (see LEGO Juris A/S v. Domains by Proxy, Inc., DomainsByProxy.com / DBA David Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1839; Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP v. ...
2021-03-10 - Case Details
鉴于此，专家组认定本案的行政程序语言应该是中文，但是专家组决定接受投诉人所提交的英文投诉书和投诉书修正本及相关材料，不要求投诉⼈提供中文翻译本。专家组认为这一决定并不会给当事⼈双方造成不公平且能促使行政程序高效及经济地进行。参见LEGO Juris A/S 诉 Zhong Huijie，WIPO 案件编号 D2011-1381。
6.2 实质性问题
根据政策第4条(a)项的规定，投诉书必须同时符合以下三个要素，才能胜诉。
...
2021-03-04 - 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. ...
2020-11-25 - Case Details
In previous UDRP decisions, UDRP panels found that in the absence of any license or permission from the complainant to use such widely known trademarks, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the domain name could reasonably be claimed (LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2020-10-12 - Case Details
Domain Administrator,
Caso OMPI No. D2004-0743; ver también LEGO Juris A/S v. pcmaniabg, Paisiy Aleksandrov,
Caso OMPI No. D2010-1965; Etihad Airways c. Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp,
Caso OMPI No. ...
2020-12-18 - Case Details
Third, the Panel finds, similar to other UDRP panels, that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain
(“gTLD”) “.com” to the Disputed Domain Name does not constitute an element that may help avoid confusing
similarity for the Policy purposes (see, e.g., LEGO Juris A/S v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC /
Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, WIPO Case No. ...
2022-09-20 - Case Details