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
专家组认为这一决定并不会给当事双方造成不公平且能促使行政程序高效及经济地进行。并且，专家组决定使用中文作出本案裁决。参见 LEGO Juris A/S 诉 Zhong Huijie, WIPO 案件编号D2011-1381。
6.3 实质问题
根据政策第4条(a)项的规定，投诉书必须同时符合以下三个要素，才能胜诉。
(i) 争议域名与投诉人享有权利的商品商标或服务商标相同或混淆性相似；
(ii) 被投诉人对争议域名不享有权利或合法利益；及
(iii) 被投诉人对争议域名的注册和使用具有恶意。
...
2019-05-23 - Case Details
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
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
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 that case the panel held
that “[t]he disputed domain name is confusingly similar
to the trademark LEGO, the mere inclusion of an additional letter, in the present
case the letter “s”, is not a distinctive feature and the Complainant’s
trademark is entirely contained in the disputed domain name…..”
...
2006-08-21 - 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
Third, the Panel finds, similarly to the other UDPR panels, that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain
(“gTLD”) “.com” to the Disputed Domain Name can be disregarded for the purposes of the Policy (see, e.g.,
LEGO Juris A/S v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio
Electronico, WIPO Case No. ...
2023-02-01 - 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
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. ...
2023-02-23 - Case Details
鉴于此，为了不给投诉人带来不必要的资金负担和不便以及不延误行政程序，专家组决定接受投诉人所提交的英文版投诉书及相关材料，不要求投诉人提供中文翻译文本。但是，专家组决定使用中文作出本案裁决。参见 LEGO Juris A/S 诉Zhong Huijie， WIPO 案件编号D2011-1381。
6.2 裁决
根据政策第4条(a)项的规定，投诉书必须同时符合以下三个要素，方能胜诉。
(i) 争议域名与投诉人享有权利的商品商标或服务商标相同或混淆性相似；
(ii) 被投诉人对争议域名不享有权利或合法利益； 及
(iii) 被投诉人对争议域名的注册和使用具有恶意。
...
2015-07-22 - 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
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
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