Teniendo en cuenta la reputación de la marca AUTOPLAZA en el sector automotriz, el hecho de que el Titular haya reproducido íntegramente dicha marca en los nombres de dominio en disputa, claramente sugiere la existencia de mala fe con carácter oportunista del Titular (ver LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
Caso OMPI No. D2010-0494, y Sanofi-Aventis v. Nevis Domains LLC,
Caso OMPI No. ...
2020-02-25 - Case Details
Furthermore, panels found that, in the absence of any license or permission from Complainant to use such widely-known trademarks, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the domain names 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. ...
2019-11-28 - 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, LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0138.
Furthermore, the Panel notes that the Complainant has been specifically and exclusively authorized and appointed by the Government of various countries to carry out visa administration and management work. ...
2020-11-04 - 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 disputed domain name could reasonably be claimed. See, LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0138.
On a perusal of Annex 6 and 7 attached to the Complaint, the Panel is satisfied that as on April 13, 2020, the disputed domain name resolved into a fully functional website where the Respondent was offering identical services as that of the Complainant namely financial services. ...
2020-09-28 - Case Details
Identify Protect Limited/Brian Benedict M Lu,
Caso OMPI No. D2012-0743; ulteriormente Lego Iuris A/S v. Domains By Proxy, LLC/Stephen Pierce,
Caso OMPI No. D2012-0190, y más recientementePhilip Morris USA Inc. v. ...
2022-02-23 - Case Details
case=D2019-1773
page 6
have been aware of this trademark and its reputation when it registered the disputed domain name, so that
the disputed domain name () was registered in bad faith”); LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner
Stotte, WIPO Case No. D2010-0494; Sanofi-Aventis v. Nevis Domains, LLC, WIPO Case No. ...
2022-11-14 - Case Details
En consecuencia, los tres elementos del párrafo 4(a) de la Política se encuentran satisfechos en el presente
caso.
5 Ver LEGO Juris A/S v. NyunHwa Jung, Caso OMPI No. D2012-2491.
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?...
2022-12-29 - Case Details
Mustafa Yakin / Moniker Privacy Services,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0016; LEGO Juris A/S v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Carolina
Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, WIPO Case No. ...
2022-11-29 - 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
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0007.html
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0011.html
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2010/d2010-1017.html
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2003/d2003-0269.html
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2009/d2009-0093.html
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?...
2022-08-30 - Case Details
/Fernando Triana/
Fernando Triana
Experto Único
Fecha: 4 de noviembre de 2022.
5 Ver LEGO Juris A/S v. NyunHwa Jung, Caso OMPI No. D2012-2491.
mailto:xxx@techintchile.com
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?...
2022-11-07 - Case Details
case=D2016-1688
page 7
domain name intended to draw income from the improper use of the connection to the Complainant was
registration in bad faith. (see LEGO Juris A/S v. Floyd Goddard/ Oneandone, Private Registration, WIPO
Case No. D2010-0544, the panel stated: “The Panel, in accordance with previous decisions issued under
the UDRP, is of the opinion that actual knowledge of the Complainant’s trademarks and activities at the time
of the registration of the disputed domain may be considered an inference of bad faith.”)
...
2022-10-12 - Case Details
In some particular circumstances, especially if it is sufficiently clear and prominent, a disclaimer may sometimes be found to support other factors indicating good faith or legitimate interests (see, LEGO Juris A/S v. Andrew Orr,
WIPO Case No. D2015-1311).
However, the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0"), section 3.7 states: "In cases where the respondent appears to otherwise have a right or legitimate interest in a disputed domain name, a clear and sufficiently prominent disclaimer would lend support to circumstances suggesting its good faith. ...
2018-01-04 - Case Details
反而，在本案中该名字可能增加争议域名与投诉人商标之间的混淆性，因为投诉人试图收购Medivation, Inc。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。...
2016-08-01 - Case Details
本案争议域名<1ar.top>完全包含投诉人1 AR商标字样，除此之外仅添加了通用顶级域名“.top”。专家组认为，“.top”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)。
因此，专家组认定争议域名与投诉人的1 AR商标相同或混淆性相似。投诉书符合政策第4条(a)项所规定的第一个要素。
...
2016-09-06 - Case Details
诉 Shenzhenhuaxing，WIPO 案件编号 D2008-0557（域名为)。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）。
...
2016-11-16 - Case Details
专家组认为，顶级域名“.xyz”及“.pw”在本案中不具有任何区别本案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)。
因此，专家组认定争议域名与投诉人的PICTET商标相同。投诉书符合政策第4条(a)项所规定的第一个要素。
...
2017-01-30 - Case Details
其余部分为"zg"和".com"。".com"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）。
至于"zg"只是普通英文字母组合的字符串，没有区别争议域名与投诉人拥有的商标的效果（Deutz AG 诉 Liushuliang，WIPO 案件编号 D2013-1807；J. ...
2017-03-29 - Case Details
其余部分为"sz"和".com"。".com"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）。
至于"sz"只是普通英文字母组合的字符串，没有区别争议域名与投诉人拥有的商标的效果（Deutz AG 诉 Liushuliang，WIPO 案件编号 D2013-1807；J. ...
2017-03-29 - Case Details
其余部分为"zj"和".com"。".com"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）。
至于"zj"只是普通英文字母组合的字符串，没有区别争议域名与投诉人拥有的商标的效果（Deutz AG 诉 Liushuliang，WIPO 案件编号 D2013-1807；J. ...
2017-03-29 - Case Details
If the Respondent then fails to demonstrate his rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, the complaint succeeds under this head").
4 Ver Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web,
Caso OMPI No. D2000-0624.
5 Ver LEGO Juris A/S v. NyunHwa Jung.
Caso OMPI No. D2012-2491.
6 "The selection of this word is certainly not a random decision; the Panel finds that it is a consequence of Respondent's prior knowledge of the mark. ...
2017-09-26 - Case Details