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。...
2016-07-29 - Case Details
The Panel also notes that WIPO Panels have not universally applied any requirement for an express disclaimer, even after the publication of the WIPO Overview 2.0: see, e.g. LEGO Juris A/S v. Stichting RIBW ZWWF,
WIPO Case No. DNL2011-0042, domain name (complaint denied) and Lise Charmel Industrie v. ...
2014-10-22 - Case Details
本案争议域名，完全包含投诉人MONCLER商标字样，其余部分为"online"、 "-"、"it"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)。
至于英文字样"online"，其中文可译为"线上的、连线"，"it"则可为国名"Italy"(意大利)的缩写，二者为普通英文单词；而"-"符号只是常见的连字符号，因此"moncler"后所附的单词及符号均无法产生区别本案争议域名与投诉人的MONCLER商标的效果（J. ...
2014-07-18 - 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。...
2015-04-30 - Case Details
本案争议域名，完全包含投诉人GUCCI商标字样，其余部分为“borse”、 “-”、“sito”、“ufficiale”及“.net”。“.net”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)。
至于意大利文“borse”、 “sito”及“ufficiale”，其中文分别可译为“手提包”、“地点”及“官方的”，为普通名词及形容词；而“-”符号只是常见的连字符号，均无法产生区别本案争议域名与投诉人的GUCCI商标的效果（J. ...
2014-05-12 - Case Details
所以投诉人的DIOR商标仍然是争议域名的显著部分(Christian Dior Couture诉Dior Interiors, Zion Segev，WIPO案件编号D2009-1431)。“.org”是一个通用顶级域名代码，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)。
被投诉人在答辩书中并未指出争议域名是否与投诉人的DIOR商标相同或混淆性相似。
因此，专家组认定争议域名与投诉人的DIOR商标混淆性相似。...
2014-01-16 - Case Details
Among the companies that have advertised their products or services on the Yahoo
site are Apple, Colgate-Palmolive, Disney, The Gap, Honda, IBM, Lego, Microsoft,
Procter & Gamble, Sony, Swatch, Toshiba, and Visa.
Nearly all of Yahoo’s current Internet services are offered to the public free
of charge, its income being primarily derived from the sale of advertising and
co-branding or sponsorship agreements with other companies. ...
2001-06-29 - 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。...
2017-01-03 - Case Details
关于通用顶级域名“.com”，专家组认为该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。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。
...
2017-03-22 - 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。...
2015-02-13 - 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。...
2015-02-06 - Case Details
UDRP panels commonly take account of the overall impression created by additional material in the disputed domain name in assessing confusing similarity (LEGO Juris A/S v. DBA David Inc/ DomainsByProxy.com,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1290, “Therefore, the mere addition of the words “Ninjago” and “Kai” is not sufficient to exclude the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark. ...
2012-12-07 - 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. ...
2012-12-18 - Case Details
Among the companies that have advertised their
products or services on the Complainant’s site are Apple, Colgate-Palmolive,
Disney, The Gap, Hilton Hotels, Honda, IBM, Lego, Microsoft, Procter & Gamble,
Seagrams, Sony, Swatch, Target Stores, Toshiba and Visa.
The Complainant also licenses the
YAHOO! ...
2002-07-08 - Case Details
The reviews state, for
example:
‘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.’
‘Not good but not so bad quality.’”
...
2022-11-01 - Case Details
Mere registration of a domain name does not generate rights or legitimate interests in and of itself. See LEGO Juris A/S v. Zhijun Guo,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0184.
The disputed domain names in the second group are connected to Internet shops, operated either at websites corresponding to the disputed domain names or, via redirection, at external websites. ...
2012-03-05 - 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。...
2015-04-21 - 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. ...
2013-01-15 - 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. ...
2012-08-02 - Case Details
本案争议域名，完全包含投诉人AREVA商标字样，其余部分为“china” 、“-”连字符和“.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)。
至于英文“china”一词，可以译为“中国”，是一个普通地理名词；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AREVA商标的效果。 ...
2013-11-11 - Case Details