WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
LEGO Juris A/S v. Domain Technicians, WorldInternetAuthority.com
Case No. D2021-1424
1. The Parties
The Complainant is LEGO Juris A/S, Denmark, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden.
...See LEGO Juris A/S v. World Internet Authority,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1467 (“the First Case”).
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on October 22, 2018.
...
2021-07-26 - Case Details
ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
LEGO Juris A/S v. Paul Gauvreau, Androux Reabow
Case No. D2024-1725
1. The Parties
The Complainant is LEGO Juris A/S, Denmark, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB,
Sweden.
...Factual Background
The Complainant has supplied construction toys and related products under the mark LEGO since the
1930s.
The Complainant owns many registered trade marks for LEGO including United States trade mark No.
1018875, registered on August 26, 1975, in class 28.
...
2024-07-24 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
行政专家组裁决
LEGO Juris A/S 诉 chen youjun
案件编号：D2012-0759
1. 当事人双方
本案投诉人是LEGO Juris A/S，其位于丹麦的Billund。投诉人的授权代理人是瑞典的Melbourne IT Digital Brand Services。
...诉 Spiral Matrix, WIPO案件编号D2006-0189)
在本案中，争议域名的主体部分由“Lego”和“21”两部分组成。其中的“Lego”与投诉人商标完全相同。专家组注意到“21”这一数字没有其它特殊的标识作用或特别的附加意义。专家组认为，尽管争议域名在该商标后加上了“21”，这并不能排除争议域名与投诉人商标具有混淆性相似的可能性。
...
2012-06-26 - Case Details
ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
LEGO Juris A/S v. Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico
Case No. D2023-0262
1. The Parties
The Complainant is LEGO Juris A/S, Denmark, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB,
Sweden.
The Respondent is Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, Panama.
2. ...
2023-03-10 - Case Details
D2012-2092 (ordering be cancelled); LEGO Juris A/S v. PrivacyProtect.org / Kim Bum LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2012-2462 (ordering be transferred to complainant); LEGO Juris A/S v. ...A domain name that is created by the combination of a famous mark with a generic or descriptive term will often be considered confusingly similar to the mark it self. See LEGO Juris A/S v. PrivacyProtect.org / Kim Bum LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2012-2462 (“the addition of descriptive terms to a trademark is generally not a distinguishing feature….”). ...
2013-04-12 - Case Details
ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
LEGO Juris A/S v. Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf /
Ayoub lagnadi, Lagnadi LTD
Case No. .../Tuukka Airaksinen/
Tuukka Airaksinen
Sole Panelist
Date: September 7, 2022
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
LEGO Juris A/S v. Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Ayoub lagnadi, Lagnadi LTD
Case No. ...
2022-09-16 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
LEGO Juris A/S v. Lirong Shi
Case No. D2016-1469
1. The Parties
The Complainant is LEGO Juris A/S of Billund, Denmark, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.
...Complainant
The Complainant is a company incorporated in Denmark and the owner of numerous registrations worldwide for the trade mark LEGO (the “Trade Mark”), the earliest registration dating from May 1, 1954 in the case of Danish Trade mark no. ...
2016-09-15 - Case Details
The Complainant also notes that the Respondent has a past history of cybersquatting. In a recent decision LEGO Juris A/S v. Richard Larkins Sets&Reps,
WIPO Case No. D2012-1024, the panel ordered that a number of domain names incorporating the LEGO trademark should be transferred to the complainant after it was found that the Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names and had registered and used them in bad faith. ...The evidence provided by the Complainant of the Respondent’s previous history in this regard as set out in the decision in LEGO Juris A/S v. Richard Larkins Sets& Reps,
WIPO Case No. D2012-1024 only serves to reinforce the Panel’s view that the use of the disputed domain name to resolve to a sponsored linking page in this case most likely provides the Respondent with pay-per-click revenue and is therefore evidence of registration and use in bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
...
2013-03-07 - Case Details
DRO2009-0007), the Panel finds that the language of the present proceeding should be English, for the following reasons:
- The Complainant requested for English to be the language of the administrative proceedings;
- terms in English language were included on the website to which the disputed domain name used to resolve according to the evidence put forward by the Complainant;
- the Respondent has failed to raise any objection or even to respond to the Complaint or the Center’s communication with regard to the language of the proceedings even though communicated in Romanian and in English (see LEGO Juris A/S v. Ilie Cezar,
WIPO Case No. DRO2011-0010);
6.2. Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant must establish that it has a trademark or service mark and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark or service mark for the Complainant to succeed.
...In the circumstances of this particular case, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to profit from the Complainant’s trademark goodwill and reputation, which is incompatible with making a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. For a similar finding see LEGO Juris A/S v. FUNDATIA LEGO SCHOOL, Pre-School Educational Center Foundation and CENTRUL EDUCATIONAL LEGO DACTA, Lego Dacta Educational Center,
WIPO Case No. ...
2019-01-10 - Case Details
D2013-0188 against Complainant’s AUCHAN trademark and LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0138 and other domain names incorporating “lego” against Complainant’s well-known LEGO trademark.
5.A.2.4. Fourth, use of the disputed domain name to resolve to a pay-per-click site which contains links to products of the Complainant’s competitors (see, paragraph 4.B.1 above) is not a noncommercial or fair use of that domain name under paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy. ...
2013-09-27 - Case Details
In terms of what amounts to an actual offering, the panel in Lego Juris A/S v. Andrew Vierling,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1913 found that by providing links to a website where LEGO products could be purchased, the Respondent was not offering LEGO products:
“The Panel doubts on the provided record that the Respondent could fairly be described as a genuine reseller of the Complainant’s goods within the meaning of the Policy. Rather it seems to the Panel that if there would be a relevant reseller here it would be Amazon.com, and that the Respondent (by its use of the disputed Domain Name) could at best be described as an intermediary or middle man, profiting from the unauthorized use of the Complainant’s trademark in a domain name to re-direct Internet user [sic] to a location at which LEGO products may purchased from a third party.”
It follows that on these facts, providing links to a website where washing machines can be purchased does not amount to a genuine offering of goods.
...
2012-02-21 - Case Details
Mai mult decât atât, faptul că Pârâtul nu a răspuns la solicitările Reclamantului de transfer voluntar al numelui de domeniu în litigiu altfel decât solicitând o ofertă de cumpărare a numelui de domeniu în litigiu reprezintă, din punctul de vedere al acestui Complet Administrativ, un indiciu în sensul că înregistrarea numelui de domeniu în litigiu este lipsită de fundamentul drepturilor sau interesului legitim (a se vedea în acest sens și LEGO Juris A/S v. FUNDATIA LEGO SCHOOL, Pre-School Educational Center Foundation and CENTRUL EDUCATIONAL LEGO DACTA, Lego Dacta Educational Center,
Cazul OMPI nr. ...
2014-04-04 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
LEGO Juris A/S v. Vacanta
Case No. DNL2012-0070
1. The Parties
The Complainant is LEGO Juris A/S of Billund, Denmark, represented by Melbourne IT Digital Brand Services, Sweden.
...
2013-03-04 - Case Details
Lyons
Sole Panelist
Date: August 15, 2016
1 See paragraph 1.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”).
2 See LEGO Juris A/S v. pcmaniabg, Paisiy Aleksandrov,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1965, holding <lego-bg.com> to be confusingly similar to LEGO because the letters “bg” would be understood as the ISO for Bulgaria; see also eBay Inc. v. ...
2016-08-22 - Case Details
A domain name that is created by the combination of a famous mark with a generic or descriptive term will often be considered confusingly similar to the mark. See LEGO Juris A/S v. PrivacyProtect.org / Kim Bum LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2012-2462 (“the addition of descriptive terms to a trademark is generally not a distinguishing feature….”); accord SoLuxury HMC v. ...There is ample reason to believe that the underlying Registrant’s practice is motivated by a desire for commercial gain. See LEGO Juris A/S v. PrivacyProtect.org / Kim Bum LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2012-2462 (“The Panel believes that the Respondent may benefit directly or indirectly from such confusion, for instance, by receiving “click-through” commissions in accordance with conventional practice on the Internet when customers reach a site through a link on a portal….”).
...
2013-04-12 - Case Details
Lyons
Sole Panelist
Date: September 5, 2016
1 See paragraph 1.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”).
2 See LEGO Juris A/S v. pcmaniabg, Paisiy Aleksandrov,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1965, holding <lego-bg.com> to be confusingly similar to LEGO because the letters “bg” would be understood as the ISO for Bulgaria; see also eBay Inc. v. ...
2016-09-15 - Case Details
ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER
行政专家组裁决
Lego Holding A/S 诉 杨文静（Wen Jing Yang）
案件编号 DCN2025-0047
1. 当事人双方
本案投诉人是 Lego Holding A/S，其位于丹麦。...此外，投诉人还持有（注册于 1995 年 8 月 22 日）、（注册于 1998 年 8 月 4
日）等多个包含其商标 LEGO 和 LEGOLAND 的域名，用于宣传其产品和服务。
B. 被投诉人
本案的被投诉人是杨文静（Wen Jing Yang），是一名位于中国的自然人。
C. 争议域名基本情况
争议域名注册于 2025 年 9 月 27 日。...
2026-01-05 - Case Details
PrivacyProtect.org / Kim Bum,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0181; LEGO Juris A/S v. PrivacyProtect.org / Kim Bum LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2012-2462; LEGO Juris A/S v. PrivacyProtect.org / Kim Bum - Kim Bum LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2012-2025; LEGO Juris A/S v. PrivacyProtect.org / Kim Bum - Kim Bum LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2012-1980. Previous UDRP panels have found that previous findings of cybersquatting in similar fact situations is evidence of bad faith.
...
2013-07-31 - Case Details
De nombreuses décisions UDRP ont reconnu que l’addition de termes génériques associés à une marque ne créent pas un droit nouveau ou différent sur la marque, ni ne diminuent la confusion avec la marque:
- LEGO Juris A/S c. Viktor Tkachev, Lego Town,
Litige OMPI No. D2016-0239 (<lego-town.com>)
En outre, l’expression “boursorama” est fantaisiste et connue seulement en rapport avec le Requérant. ...
2017-04-07 - Case Details
Moreover, the Panel is aware that Respondent is engaged in a pattern of typosquatting on known brands beyond Complainant’s, including LEGO Juris A/S v. Above.com Domain Privacy / Nish Patel (Ready Asset) ,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0261, , Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. Nish Patel/Above.com Domain Privacy,
WIPO Case No. D2013-1127, , LEGO Juris A/S v. Above.com Domain Privacy / Ready Asset, Nish Patel ,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0114, and Atos IT Services UK Limited v. ...
2014-04-08 - Case Details