Le nom de domaine litigieux reprend intégralement les marques du Requérant, ce qui peut être suffisant pour établir que le nom de domaine litigieux est identique ou similaire au point de prêter à confusion avec les marques enregistrées du Requérant, l’adjonction d’autres termes n’éliminant pas le risque de confusion (LEGO Juris A/S v. Richard Larkins Sets&Reps,
Litige OMPI No. D2012-1024).
Ceci s’avère particulièrement vrai lorsque, comme dans le cas présent, la marque antérieure est une marque notoire: la marque VEEPEE est immédiatement identifiable dans le nom de domaine litigieux et amène le public à croire que le nom de domaine litigieux est lié d’une quelconque manière à la marque du Requérant (Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. v. ...
2021-06-28 - Case Details
Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico,
WIPO Case No. D2021-1735 .
5 Referring to LEGO Juris A / S v Reiner Stotte, WIPO Case D2010-0494, Caixa D’Estalvis / Pensions de Barcelona (“La Caixa”) v. ...
2021-12-02 - Case Details
These principles may in some specific circumstances apply to a
four letter acronym – there may be some four letter domain names where the corresponding brand is so well
known that the principles apply – DIOR or LEGO for example, but the Panel is not persuaded that the same
principle applies to four letter acronyms generally, and does not consider it applies here.
...
2024-06-25 - Case Details
Des nombreuses décisions des commissions administratives 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 (LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
Litige OMPI No. D2010-0494).
La Commission administrative estime par conséquent que le nom de domaine litigieux a été enregistré de mauvaise foi.
...
2012-02-21 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have found that in the absence of any license or permission from a complainant to use well-known trademarks, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the domain name incorporating such marks 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. ...
2013-02-07 - Case Details
According to Stichting VVV Groep Nederland v. C. Henriquez,
WIPO Case No. DNL2008-0040, LEGO Juris A/S v. Nick Terlouw,
WIPO Case No. DNL2011-0023 and Altro Limited v. Handelsonderneming H.M.S B.V.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2014-01-27 - 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.
According to the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), paragraph 2.6:
“Panels have generally recognized that use of a domain name to post parking and landing pages or PPC links may be permissible in some circumstances, but would not of itself confer rights or legitimate interests arising from a “bona fide offering of goods or services” [see also paragraph 3.8 below] or from “legitimate noncommercial or fair use” of the domain name, especially where resulting in a connection to goods or services competitive with those of the rights holder. ...
2013-09-09 - Case Details
It is an approach that has also been previously rejected by this Panelist (LEGO Juris A/S v. P N S Enterprises,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0170). It is an argument that rests on the whole public being aware of all the associations of the Complainant’s mark.
...
2013-03-07 - Case Details
Incorporation of the SWAROVSKI marks in the Domain Names 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. ...
2012-07-05 - Case Details
D2009-1666 for the domain name ; LEGO Juris A/S v. Transure Enterprise Ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1347 for the domain names , , and ; and Wolters Kluwer U.S. ...
2012-05-11 - Case Details
D2012-1293: “previous UDRP decisions have found bad faith at the time of registration to exist 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. ...
2015-09-21 - 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。
...
2017-01-31 - Case Details
本案争议域名，完全包含投诉人的ASHLEY MADISON商标字样，其余部分".site"是一个通用顶级域名，在本案中不具有任何区别争议域名与投诉人商标的效果(LEGO Juris A/S 诉 Chen Yong，WIPO 案件编号 D2009-1611)。此外，域名并无大小写的区别，且移除"ashley"与"madison"间之空格，系属于技术性规定，亦是域名注册的惯例。...
2015-10-26 - Case Details
The Complainant cites in this context among others LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte, WIPO Case
No. D2010-0494; Caixa D’Estalvis I Pensions de Barcelona (“La Caixa”) v. ...
2024-10-08 - Case Details
Tropic Web,
Caso OMPI No. D2000-0624.
5 Ver LEGO Juris A/S v. NyunHwa Jung,
Caso OMPI No. D2012-2491....
2019-09-09 - Case Details
Given the reputation of the EQUIFAX trademark and the unlikelihood of the Respondent selecting the
disputed domain name for registration by chance, the Panel infers that the registration of the disputed
domain name intended to draw income from the improper use of the connection to the Complainant was
registration in bad faith. (See, e.g., LEGO Juris A/S v. Floyd Goddard/ Oneandone, Private Registration,
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?...
2023-02-14 - Case Details
And finally, numerous panels view website suspension by the Registrar or webhost, absent any explanation
or attempted justification by the respondent, as added corroboration of bad faith. See LEGO Juris A/S v.
Ammar Briouel / Brahim Mahjoubi, WIPO Case No. D2019-0750 (involving website suspension following a
takedown request by Complainant); Hershey Entertainment & Resorts Company v. ...
2025-10-08 - Case Details
En este sentido véanse anteriores resoluciones, tales como el
caso LEGO Juris A/S c. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd,
Host master, Caso OMPI No. ...
2022-03-15 - Case Details
The Panel takes this as corroborating evidence of Respondent’s
bad faith. LEGO Juris A/S v. Ammar Briouel / Brahim Mahjoubi, WIPO Case No. D2019-0750 (involving
website suspension following a takedown request by Complainant).
...
2024-01-17 - Case Details
The Panel is of the opinion that the Respondent should have substantiated 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 Panel also did not find exceptional circumstances in the record which would justify a change of language to Dutch.
...
2022-04-21 - Case Details