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的第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，包括投诉人拥有知名商标；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。...
2015-09-08 - 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的第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，包括投诉人拥有知名商标；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。...
2015-09-08 - 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的第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，包括投诉人拥有知名商标；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。...
2015-09-08 - 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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. ...
2016-09-23 - Case Details
参见WIPO Overview 2.0，第3.2段；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 2.0的第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，包括投诉人拥有知名商标；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。...
2016-02-01 - Case Details
争议域名包含了整个MICHELIN商标，并在该商标后添加了通用顶级域名后缀".space"。通用顶级域名后缀一般也不具有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；Dr. Ing. H.c. F. Porsche AG 诉zhanglei，WIPO案件编号D2014-0080及Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., The Sheraton LLC, Sheraton International IP, LLC 诉 NetNames Hostmaster，WIPO案件编号D2014-0359）。...
2016-01-21 - Case Details
专家组认为，".news"作为一个通用顶级域名，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REMY MARTIN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。
...
2016-06-22 - Case Details
同时，专家组认为，“.net”和“.com”作为一个通用顶级域名，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BITZER商标混淆性相似。投诉书符合政策第4条(a)项所规定的第一个要素。
...
2016-07-21 - Case Details
D2020-2684 with a well-known trademark that its very use by someone with no connection to the trademark suggests opportunistic bad faith (
WIPO Case No. D2013-0091, LEGO Juris A/S v. store24hour;
WIPO Case No. D2008-0226, Lancôme Parfums et Beauté & Cie, L’Oréal v. 10Selling;
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-02-22 - Case Details
The fact that there are 170 or so previous cases involving Fundacion Privacy Services LTD and the Registrar, that the underlying registrant was not disclosed in any of these cases and in nearly all those cases, the complainant was successful, strongly suggests that the Registrar together with Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, has adopted a business model of providing registrar and privacy services either to a single or multiple cybersquatters.
6.20 In LEGO Juris A/S v. Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. / Domains Secured, LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1857, the Panel observed (having considered the practice of previous panels) that where a registrar breached the provisions of the Policy or Rules or its conduct otherwise threatened to undermine the proper operation of the UDRP, it might be appropriate to invite the Center to bring that failure to the attention of ICANN, with a view to ICANN undertaking such investigation into, and enforcement steps against, the registrar as it considers appropriate.
6.21 For the reasons set out above, the Panel has concluded that the Registrar’s conduct in this case (and indeed the many other previous cases in which it has been involved) merits referral to ICANN for investigation and possible enforcement. ...
2021-07-15 - Case Details
关于通用顶级域名，专家组认为其是注册争议域名的技术要求，所以专家组在认定争议域名与投诉人商标是否混淆性相似时，无需考虑。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。...
2021-07-12 - Case Details