Trademark Worx LLC a/k/a Richard Yaming, NAF Claim No. 1370035 (Trademark Worx LLC a/k/a Richard Yaming, ); and LEGO Juris A/S v. Yang Kyung Won,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1124 (Yang Kyung Won, ).1 In each of these UDRP proceedings, the panel found against the respondent and transferred the domain name to the complainant. ...
2012-09-27 - Case Details
The Covance Campaign,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0206; LEGO Juris A/S v. M. Moench,
WIPO Case No. DNL2009-0052).
It is also established case law that the top level domain “.nl” may be disregarded in assessing the similarity between the Domain Name on the one hand and the invoked trade marks on the other hand (Roompot Recreatie Beheer B.V. v. ...
2013-02-05 - 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. ...
2012-06-07 - 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 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. ...
2013-05-07 - Case Details
H. van Zuylen Materieel,
WIPO Case No. DNL2011-0073; LEGO Juris A/S v. Nick Terlouw,
WIPO Case No. DNL2011-0023; Taylor Made Golf Company, Inc. v. Lotom Group S.A.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2013-12-05 - Case Details
In the absence of such license or authorisation provided by the Complainant, it is clear that no bona fide or legitimate use of the Disputed Domain Name can reasonably be claimed by the Respondent (LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2013-05-10 - 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 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. ...
2012-10-22 - Case Details
Jasper Developments Pty. Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0795; LEGO Juris A/S v. Above.com Domain Privacy, Host Master / Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host Master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2010-06-01 - Case Details
“plc”可以理解为“股份有限公司”，属于通用性词语，不具备显著的区别作用，即使与“taylorwimpey”字样连用，争议域名主要识别部分仍是“taylorwimpey”，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 2.0，第1.9段)。 而“.mobi”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，本案争议域名的主要识别部分为“taylorwimpey”，与投诉人拥有的TAYLOR WIMPEY商标完全相同。 ...
2013-07-26 - Case Details
The addition of the word “group” suggests a group of companies or individuals. As noted in LEGO Juris A/S v Private, Registration/Dohe Dot,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0753, the addition of a term that is generic or descriptive is likely to produce confusion since it creates an association with the Complainant. ...
2013-10-23 - Case Details
Aan
de voorwaarden van de OKI Data test is voldaan indien
1. de verweerder daadwerkelijk waren en diensten onder het ingeroepen merk onder de betwiste
domeinnaam aanbiedt;
2. de verweerder uitsluitend deze waren of diensten onder het ingeroepen merk onder de betwiste
domeinnaam aanbiedt (anders bestaat de mogelijkheid dat de verweerder het ingeroepen merk in een
domeinnaam gebruikt om consumenten te lokken en hen vervolgens naar andere waren te leiden;
“bait-and-switch”);
2 Aangezien de Regeling verregaand is gebaseerd op de Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”), is het vaste
jurisprudentie dat zaken die zijn beslist op grond van zowel de Regeling als de UDRP en dus WIPO Overview 3.0 relevant zijn voor
deze procedure (zie bijvoorbeeld LEGO Juris A/S v. Stichting RIBW ZWWF, WIPO Zaaknr. DNL2011-0042 en Arie Hendrik den Draak
v. RAPIDE Internet, WIPO Zaaknr. ...
2024-11-04 - 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. ...
2024-05-22 - 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. ...
2024-10-25 - Case Details
That previous panels have found that, in the absence of any license or authorization from a complainant to
use its previously registered trademarks, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the domain
can be claimed by a respondent (and cites International Business Machines Corporation v. Chen Hui,
Gname, WIPO Case No. D2021-0240 and LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com
Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master, WIPO Case No. ...
2024-12-18 - Case Details
Panels have previously held that a finding of bad faith can be established where a complainant’s trademark
is shown to be well-known or in wide use at the time of registration of the disputed domain name (see LEGO
Juris A/S v. store24hour, WIPO Case No. D2013-0091). The Respondents are likely to have been fully
aware of the Complainant and the Complainant’s Trademark when they registered the Disputed Domain
Names, given the well-known nature of the Complainant’s brand, evidenced by the various trademark
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?...
2024-10-07 - 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
If the Respondent then fails to demonstrate his rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, the complaint succeeds under this head”.
5 See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web,
Caso OMPI No. D2000-0624.
6 Ver LEGO Juris A/S v. NyunHwa Jung.
Caso OMPI No. D2012-2491.
7 Ver F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Bargin Register, Inc. - Client Services, supra (“Finally, the Panel considers that providing fake contact information when registering a domain name is also indicative of bad faith. ...
2018-03-09 - Case Details
The only additional element is the Top-Level Domain ("TLD") suffix ".com" but a TLD suffix may generally be disregarded in the comparison between a domain name and a trademark for the purposes of assessing confusing similarity. 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. ...
2018-02-13 - 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
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