Past UDRP panel decisions also suggest that where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the dispute domain name, the addition of descriptive terms would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity (see WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 1.8). For instance, in LEGO Juris A/S v. Domain Privacy Service FBO Registrant / Jill Cottingham,
WIPO Case No. D2016-1608, it was held that the disputed domain name, , was confusingly similar to the LEGO mark as adding the term “kids” to the LEGO mark in the disputed domain name did not avoid a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the UDRP. ...
2018-11-12 - Case Details
The Panel will have to establish whether the Complainant's prima facie case meets the requirements of paragraph 4 of the Policy. See LEGO Juris A/S v. NyunHwa Jung,
WIPO Case No. D2012-1233; Charabot SA v. Name Redacted,
WIPO Case No. D2018-0339.
...Previous UDRP panels have regularly ruled that bad faith was found where a domain name is obviously connected with a well-known trademark that its very use by someone with no connection to the trademark suggests opportunistic bad faith. See LEGO Juris A/S v. store24hour,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0091; Carrefour v. Jean-Claude Bot / Albert Pierre,
WIPO Case No. ...
2018-09-12 - Case Details
参见LEGO Juris A/S 诉 Chen Yong，同上；CBS Broadcasting Inc. v. Worldwide Webs, Inc., WIPO案件编号D2000-0834。
再者，投诉人在一款新近手表产品上使用数字“8”来命名。...见Jupiters Limited v. Aaron Hall, WIPO案件编号D2000-0574和LEGO Juris A/S 诉Chen Yong，同上。
鉴于上述事实及论据，专家组认定被投诉人在申请争议域名注册时已知道或应该知道DIOR是投诉人拥有的商标。上述行为构成政策下之恶意注册和使用。专家组认定投诉人完成了政策第4(a)条所规定的第三个要素的举证责任。
...
2011-03-07 - Case Details
Accordingly it is argued that the term
‘wholesale’ in does not make the disputed domain name dissimilar to the
Complainant’s trademark ZUDIO and relies upon the panel decisions in LEGO Juris A/S v. Contact Privacy
Inc. Customer 0163125175/ Daniel Perez, Lego and Jewelry Queen, WIPO Case No. ...In support of these findings the Panel relies on LEGO Juris A/S v. Contact Privacy Inc.
Customer 0163125175/ Daniel Perez, Lego and Jewelry Queen, WIPO Case No. ...
2024-04-11 - Case Details
D2006-0473, where the Panel found that the number “7” which was added as a prefix to the trademark did not remove the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the trademark in question.
See also LEGO Juris A/S v. Song Jiapeng,
WIPO Case No. D2011-0788, in which the panel held that the domain name was identical or confusingly similar to the LEGO trademark and also LEGO Juris A/S v. ...D2011-1410, in which this panel held that the domain name <93lego.com> was confusingly similar to the LEGO trademark and that the addition of numerals did nothing to minimise the risk of confusion.
The addition of generic terms typically is not enough to distinguish a respondent’s domain name from a trade mark in which another has rights. ...
2012-08-09 - Case Details
D2024-4026 ( is confusingly similar to LENNAR trademark); LEGO Juris A/S v. My
Store Admin, Wrangler Bags, WIPO Case No. D2024-2560 (<lego-closeouts.com> is confusingly similar to
LEGO trademark).
...
2025-02-04 - Case Details
D2009-0218, finding and to be confusingly similar to the BLACKBERRY trademark and LEGO Juris A/S v Domain Park Limited,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0138 finding to be confusingly similar to LEGO);
(c) 87 adverse decisions of previous panels against the Second Respondent concerning trademarks of other parties, and to a decision in which a previous panel referred to the Second Respondent’s conduct as demonstrating “a systematic pattern of abusive registrations not dissimilar to that of a serial cybersquatter” (LEGO Juris A/S v Above.com Domain Privacy/Host Master; Transure Enterprise Ltd,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-08-17 - Case Details
The Complainant asserts that conducting the proceedings in English would not be unfairly burdensome on the Respondent as he was involved in a similar UDRP case in 2012 with the same the Registrar and the panel has allowed English to be the language of the proceedings. In Lego Juris A/S v. Park HyungJin,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0310, the panel found that the Respondent Park HyungJin understands English.
...The Panel also takes note that the Respondent was the respondent in two previous UDRP cases of alleged cybersquatting that resulted in the transfer of a domain name from the Respondent to the complainant in that case (see LEGO Juris A/S v. Park HyungJin,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0310; WordPress Foundation v. Park HyungJin,
WIPO Case No. ...
2013-08-06 - Case Details
Lotom Group S.A.,
WIPO Case No. DNL2010-0072 and LEGO Juris A/S v. Nick Terlouw,
WIPO Case No. DNL2011-0023). The Panelist is therefore satisfied that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ROBECO trademarks and Trade name.
...Technology Services Ltd,
WIPO Case No. DNL2008-0002 and LEGO Juris A/S v. M. Moench,
WIPO Case No. DNL2009-0052).
The Panelist understands that Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use the ROBECO trademarks or Trade name. ...
2011-07-21 - Case Details
Where the trademark is the key element of the domain name, the addition of other generic words or terms does not affect the finding of confusing similarity. See LEGO Juris A/S v. Nathan Joseph,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1382 (the generic word “build” with the trademark LEGO in the domain name was found confusingly similar to the LEGO mark).
...
2011-12-06 - Case Details
The use of the disputed domain name to direct Internet traffic to sponsored links is not a bona fide offering of goods or services of the disputed domain name: see earlier UDRP decisions including one involving the LEGO trademark, LEGO Juris A/S v. J.h.Ryu,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1156, where the panel stated: “Further, Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name to sponsor links to paid advertising is not use of the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.”
...
2011-11-21 - Case Details
D2013-0820.
5. it is practically inconceivable that the Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name in ignorance of the Complainant's trade marks and domain names.
6. in the absence of any license or permission from the Complainant to use its widely-known trademark, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the domain name could reasonably be claimed by the Respondent, citing: Groupe Auchan v. Gan Yu,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0188; and LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com DomainPrivacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0138.
7. the lack of explanation or demonstration by the Respondent of legitimate interest in the or the disputed domain name and the actual circumstances of the use being made of the disputed domain name.
8. the registration of a domain name incorporating a well-known trade mark such as AUCHAN and the manner of its "parked" use is evidence of bad faith registration and use: LEGO Juris A/S v. store24hour,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0091; and Caixa D´Estalvis IPensions de Barcelona ("La Caixa") v. ...
2014-09-04 - Case Details
The Complainant has drawn the Panel's attention to the fact that the same address used by the Respondent in this case was also used by the respondent in LEGO Juris A/S v. Deng Yi Xia, La Duzi, Hu Li,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0858 (in which case the decision was to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant), and alleges a history of abusive domain name registration by the Respondent. The panel in the LEGO case, supra, also decided that the changes of proprietors was made to prevent proceedings against them, and, consequently, the naming of successive registrants as respondent in proceedings such these is legitimate.
...
2010-07-15 - Case Details
Rampe Purda/Privacy--Protect.org,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0720; LEGO Juris A/S v. Rampe Purda/Privacy--Protect.org,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0840; and L’Oréal v. Rampe Purda/Privacy —Protect.org,
WIPO Case No. ...Rampe Purda/Privacy--Protect.org,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0720;LEGO Juris A/S v. Rampe Purda/Privacy--Protect.org,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0840 mentioned above, in which the Respondent was also involved, and the Panel has no hesitation in finding that that the Complainant in this case has satisfied the test of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
7. ...
2010-12-07 - Case Details
In previous UDRP decisions, 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 name could reasonably be claimed (Groupe Auchan v. Gan Yu,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0188; LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...Bad faith has already been found where a domain name is so obviously connected with a well-known trademark that its very use by someone with no connection to the trademark may suggest opportunistic bad faith (LEGO Juris A/S v. store24hour,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0091; Lancôme Parfums et Beauté & Cie, L’Oréal v. 10 Selling,
WIPO Case No. ...
2018-07-10 - Case Details
The addition of other generic terms in the domain name does not affect a finding that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered trademark (LEGO Juris A/S v. Richard Larkins Sets&Reps,
WIPO Case No. D2012-1024).
In this case, the Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s mark DKNY in its entirety and is clearly its dominant element. ...International Electronic Communications, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0270; LEGO Juris A/S v. Richard Larkins Sets&Reps,
WIPO Case No. D2012-1024).
The Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and there has been no rebuttal by the Respondent. ...
2012-11-01 - Case Details
Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, a domain name is confusingly similar to a mark where the domain name fully incorporates the mark and simply adds a generic or geographically descriptive term that does not negate the confusing similarity. See LEGO Juris A/S v. clpik-studio.com Pawel Tykwinski / WP-3,
WIPO Case No. D2012-1322 ( domain name confusingly similar to complainant’s mark).
...Texas International Property Associates;
WIPO Case No. D2007-1415; LEGO Juris A/S v. clpik-studio.com Pawel Tykwinski / WP-3, supra.
The Panel finds that Complainant has established Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, and that Complainant has therefore satisfied the third element of its claim, under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
7. ...
2012-11-12 - Case Details
In previous UDRP decisions, panels found that in the absence of any license or permission from the Complainant to use such widely-known trademark, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the domain name 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. ...Prior UDRP panels have held that bad faith can be found where a domain name is so obviously connected with a well-known trademark that its very use by someone with no connection to the trademark suggests opportunistic bad faith (LEGO Juris A/S v.store24hour,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0091, Lancôme Parfums et Beauté & Cie, L’Oréal v. 10 Selling,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-09-15 - Case Details
As the Respondent was not party to any of these UDRP decisions, the Panel considers that a doctrine such as res judicata or issue estoppel does not apply, and what may have been found proven in those UDRP decisions is not evidence in this matter or binding on the Panel (LEGO Juris A/S v. Administracion Dominios,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0265; LEGO Juris A/S v. Michael Fainshtein,
WIPO Case No. ...The Panel, accordingly, finds the Complainant has rights in the trademark MR PRICE (LEGO Juris A/S v. Administracion Dominios, supra).
The fact that the wordmark MR PRICE has been incorporated entirely into the disputed domain name is sufficient to establish that it is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark (Quixtar Investments Inc. v. ...
2019-07-16 - Case Details
In the absence of any license or permission from the Complainant to use such widely-known trademark, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain name could reasonably be claimed (LEGO Juris A/S v. Domain Park Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host Master,
WIPO Case No. ...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 domain name could reasonably be claimed (LEGO Juris A/S v. Domain Park Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2014-07-15 - Case Details