参见WIPO Overview 3.0，第3.3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 3.0的第3.3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：(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。
...
2017-11-24 - Case Details
Noting the composition of the disputed domain names, 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, e.g., Sportswear Company S.PA. v. Tang Hong, WIPO
Case No. D2014-1875; and LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy,
Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master, WIPO Case No. ...
2025-02-07 - 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
参见WIPO Overview 3.0，第3.3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 3.0的第3.3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：(i) 投诉人商标的独特性或知名度的程度；(ii) 被投诉人未作出答辩或提供任何实际或预期的善意使用的证据；(iii) 被投诉人隐瞒身份，或使用虚假联系方式（违反其注册协议）；以及(iv) 不具善意使用域名的可能性等。
...
2020-01-29 - Case Details
A gTLD suffix may generally be disregarded in the comparison between a domain name and a trademark for the purposes of 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. ...
2019-09-25 - Case Details
A gTLD suffix may generally be disregarded in the comparison between a domain name and a trademark for the purposes of 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. ...
2019-10-10 - Case Details
A gTLD suffix may generally be disregarded in the comparison between a domain name and a trademark for the purposes of 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. ...
2019-08-06 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have found that in the absence of any license or permission from a complainant to use widely-known trademarks, 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. ...
2011-06-30 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have found that in the absence of any license or permission from a complainant to use widely-known trademarks, 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. ...
2011-12-01 - 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。...
2016-08-23 - 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。...
2016-08-22 - Case Details
En contraste con el presente caso, véanse, por ejemplo, las resoluciones rendidas en LEGO Juris A/S v. Daniel Korzeniewski / Registration Private,
Caso OMPI No. DMX2011-0021 y General Electric Company v. ...
2012-11-06 - Case Details
参见WIPO Overview 2.0，第3.2段；Telstra Corporation Limited v. 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”。...
2012-05-08 - Case Details
本案争议域名，完全包含投诉人GRAND MERCURE商标字样，其余部分为“hotel” 、“-”符号和“.com”。“.com”是一个顶级域名，本身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)。
至于英文“hotel”，其中文可译为“旅馆”，是一个普通名词；而“-”符号只是英文中常见的连结符号。两者都无法产生区别本案争议域名与投诉人的GRAND MERCURE商标的效果。...
2013-10-21 - Case Details
本案争议域名，完全包含投诉人LATOUR的商标，其余部分为“aoc”和“.com”。“.com”是一个通用顶级域名，本身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 “aoc” 则是“Appellation d’Origine Contrôlée”的缩写，在法文意思为“原产地控制命名”，代表法国葡萄酒最高级别，只是一个普通名词。...
2014-01-29 - Case Details
根据先前的UDRP案例，被动持有争议域名不会妨碍专家组根据所有的证据认定被投诉人恶意注册和使用争议域名（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。...
2015-07-17 - Case Details
In this regard the Complainant invokes UDRP cases LEGO Juris A/S v. Kang Zheng,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1924; and Statoil ASA. v. Allan,
WIPO Case No. D2013-2123;
- bearing in mind (a) the widespread reputation and high degree of recognition of the Complainant’s STATOIL marks and (b) the lack of distinguishing factors between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s marks, the disputed domain name should be considered as confusingly similar to the STATOIL mark in which the Complainant has rights;
- STATOIL is the second largest supplier of natural gas to the European market, with a market share in the EU of approximately 15 percent, and therefore the addition of the term “gas” to the trademark STATOIL gives the impression that the disputed domain name is reflecting the “gas” sector of the Complainant;
- due to the worldwide brand awareness of the Complainant’s STATOIL trademark, Internet users would probably assume there is a connection between the Complainant and the Respondent when seeking information on a website under the disputed domain name;
- there is no question that the disputed domain name is visually, phonetically and conceptually similar to the Complainant’s well-known trademark STATOIL.
...
2016-10-31 - Case Details
“w”只是单独的罗马字母，不具备显著的区别作用，即使与“ikea”字样连用，争议域名主要识别部分仍是“ikea”，无法将争议域名与投诉人商标给人的整体印象有效区别(WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition，“WIPO Overview 2.0”，第1.9段)。而“.com”是一通用顶级域名，本身也未具备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，本案争议域名主要识别部分为“ikea”，与投诉人拥有的IKEA商标完全相同。专家组认定，争议域名与投诉人的IKEA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。
...
2013-06-07 - Case Details
Dublin) Limited v. Dejan Macesic,
Caso OMPI No. D2000-1698; y LEGO Juris A/S v. Andrew Orr,
Caso OMPI No. D2015-1311).
A partir de lo anterior, el Experto concluye que en el presente caso no se satisfacen los supuestos (ii) y (iii), de cumplimiento exhaustivo para la consideración de uso de buena fe conforme a la interpretación mayoritaria en casos con circunstancias similares (ver sección 2.8 de la Sinopsis elaborada por la OMPI 3.0; y Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ...
2021-11-01 - 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. ...
2022-12-13 - Case Details