本案争议域名，完全包含投诉人的DAVIDOFF商标字样，其余部分为“tea”及“.com”。“.com”是一个通用顶级域名，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)。至于“tea”只是一个普通英文名词，中文可译为“茶”，无法产生区别本案争议域名与投诉人的DAVIDOFF商标的效果（J. ...
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。...
2016-08-22 - 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
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. ...
2015-10-06 - 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。...
2015-10-02 - 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。...
2016-04-27 - 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，包括投诉人拥有驰名商标、被投诉人未作出答辩、被投诉人隐瞒身份及没有善意使用域名的可能性等。...
2016-04-29 - 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。
...
2016-03-21 - 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
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 See 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....
2021-01-18 - Case Details
The Panel finds that the same approach shall be applied in the present case for the applicable ccTLD “.ua”, which is a standard registration requirement for the Disputed Domain Name and shall be disregarded for the confusing similarity test (See LEGO Juris A/S v. Anton Obrezkov,
WIPO Case No. DUA2020-0001).
In cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark the domain name will normally be considered identical or confusingly similar to that mark, the Panel finds that in the present case the Disputed Domain Name contains the Complainant’s registered VINTED Trademark in its entirety.
...
2020-09-25 - 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
The reviews state, for example:
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 9
“Electrolux is still a big brand, but...”
“I buy a lot of Lego sets for my boy.”
“Products are ok.”
“I hate this brand so much. Poor quality product.”
...
2022-08-25 - 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
If the Respondent then fails to demonstrate his rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, the complaint succeeds under this head”).
6 Ver Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web,
Caso OMPI No. D2000-0624.
7 Ver LEGO Juris A/S v. NyunHwa Jung.
Caso OMPI No. D2012-2491.
8 “The selection of this word is certainly not a random decision; the Panel finds that it is a consequence of Respondent’s prior knowledge of the mark. ...
2016-12-05 - 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，包括投诉人拥有驰名商标、被投诉人未作出答辩、被投诉人隐瞒身份及没有善意使用域名的可能性等。...
2017-02-28 - 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；被投诉人隐瞒身份；及没有善意使用域名的可能性等。...
2017-05-04 - Case Details
更未见被投诉人提出证据证明，其对"electroluxj" 字样，享有商标权或相对应的企业、事业的名称，或者虽然其对"electroluxj"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对应的证据或答辩。...
2017-12-06 - Case Details
D2012-0474.
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.
6 Ver MathForum.com, LLC v. Weiguang Huang, Caso OMPI D2000-0743....
2017-07-14 - Case Details