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 Disputed Domain Name could reasonably be claimed as found in LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Hostmaster,
WIPO Case No. ...
2019-05-02 - 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
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
D2015-2175; Dassault (Groupe Industriel Marcel Dassault) v. Ma Xiaojuan,
Caso OMPI No. D2015-1733; Lego Juris A/S v. Chen Yong,
Caso OMPI No. D2009-1611; Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. zhanglei,
Caso OMPI No. ...
2020-07-21 - 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....
2020-04-01 - Case Details
Internet bs Corporation/ Private Whois Service,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1657 and LEGO Juris A/S v. Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. / Domains Secured, LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1857. ...
2019-10-29 - 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 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
For the purpose of assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, the suffix ".com" may be disregarded as being simply a necessary component of a generic Top-Level Domain (LEGO Juris A/S v. Whois Data Protection Sp. z o.o. / Mirek Nowakowski ROSTALCO Sp. z o.o.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2014-11-26 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that this fact is on its own sufficient to prove the second criterion of the Policy and relies upon the previous UDRP decision of LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2013-04-10 - Case Details
参见WIPO Overview 2.0，第3.2段；Telstra Corporation Limited 诉 Nuclear Marshmallows，同上和LEGO Juris A/S 诉 lihailiang, WIPO案件编号DSO2011-0002。WIPO Overview 2.0 进而要求专家组必须考察各种情况以认定被投诉人行为是否具有恶意，并列举了几种可被视为恶意的情况，包括“投诉人拥有驰名商标；被投诉人未作出答辩；隐瞒身份；及没有善意使用域名的可能性”。...
2013-03-28 - Case Details
Harris
Sole Panelist
Dated: July 3, 2012
1 See, for example, paragraph 6.20 of the decision in the LEGO Juris A/S v. Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. / Domains Secured, LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1857, which identifies a number of recent decisions in which the UDRP panels have followed this course....
2012-07-18 - Case Details
本案争议域名，完全包含投诉人PORSCHE商标字样，其余部分为“yiwu”、 “-”及“.com”。“.com”是一个通用顶级域名代码，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 “yiwu”， 专家组认为是城市名称“义乌”的拼音，没有区别争议域名与投诉人拥有的商标的效果（J. Choo Limited 诉 Weng Huangteng, WIPO 案件编号 D2010-0126；J. ...
2014-03-24 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have found that in the absence of any license or permission from a complainant to use a well-known trade mark, no actual or contemplated 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. ...
2014-01-13 - 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. ...
2015-07-08 - Case Details
争议域名的后缀".top"是一个通用顶级域名，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 (LEGO Juris A/S 诉 Chen Yong， WIPO 案件编号 D2009-1611；Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG 诉 zhanglei，WIPO 案件编号 D2014-0080）。
...
2015-05-28 - Case Details
参见WIPO Overview 2.0，第3.2段；Telstra Corporation Limited 诉 Nuclear Marshmallows，同上和LEGO Juris A/S 诉 lihailiang, WIPO案件编号DSO2011-0002。WIPO Overview 2.0，第3.2段进而要求专家组必须考察各种情况以认定被投诉人行为是否具有恶意，并列举了几种可被视为恶意的情况，包括“投诉人拥有驰名商标；被投诉人未作出答辩；隐瞒身份；及没有善意使用域名的可能性”等。
...
2014-07-29 - Case Details
参见WIPO Overview 2.0，第3.2段；Telstra Corporation Limited诉 Nuclear Marshmallows，同上和LEGO Juris A/S诉 lihailiang, WIPO案件编号DSO2011-0002。WIPO Overview 2.0， 第3.2段进而要求专家组必须考察各种情况以认定被投诉人行为是否具有恶意，并列举了几种可被视为恶意的情况，包括“投诉人拥有驰名商标；被投诉人未作出答辩；隐瞒身份；及没有善意使用域名的可能性”等。
...
2014-07-29 - Case Details
参见WIPO Overview 2.0，第3.2段；Telstra Corporation Limited 诉 Nuclear Marshmallows，同上和LEGO Juris A/S 诉 lihailiang, WIPO案件编号DSO2011-0002。WIPO Overview 2.0，第3.2段进而要求专家组必须考察各种情况以认定被投诉人行为是否具有恶意，并列举了几种可被视为恶意的情况，包括"投诉人拥有驰名商标；被投诉人未作出答辩；隐瞒身份；及没有善意使用域名的可能性"等。
...
2014-07-25 - Case Details
更未见被投诉人提出证据显示，其对“Accor”字样享有商标权或相对应的注册公司、事业组织等的名称，或者虽然其对“Accor”不享有商标权，但被投诉人已因该争议域名而广为公众所知。(LEGO Juris A/S 诉 Yong Zhi, WIPO案件编号D2011-1406)。
综上，投诉人已提出初步证据证明被投诉人对争议域名不享有任何权利或合法利益，被投诉人亦未提出相反的主张和证据。...
2014-04-14 - Case Details