The incorporation of a well-known trademark into a domain name registration is grounds for a finding of bad faith registration. See, e.g., LEGO Juris A/S v. pcmaniabg, Paisiy Aleksandrov,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1965 (“It has been established that the registration of a domain name incorporating a well-known trademark can constitute registration in bad faith, since it is unlikely that the registrant was unaware of the established rights in the mark at the time the domain name was registered […] Given the notoriety of the LEGO trademark, the Panel finds that it is implausible that Respondent was unaware of Complainant’s trademark rights when registering the disputed domain name”).
...
2011-08-03 - Case Details
See, e.g., LogMeIn, Inc. v. Nanci Nette, WIPO Case
No. DME2019-0007; or LEGO Juris A/S v. zxc abc, StacyJo Mest, dasdfas fsafas, Tami Moore, kylee
Ghabour, bret Pugh, WIPO Case No. D2022-2213 (“[…] noting the broader circumstances of this case
including the incorporation of the widely-known LEGO mark, the use of the disputed domain name
to redirect to a website offering unrelated third-party goods does not constitute a bona fide
offering of goods or service, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”).
...
2026-02-03 - Case Details
Finally, the Respondent seems to have been involved in other UDRP disputes where the concerned domain
names were reproducing trademarks owned by third parties and which were resolved in favor of respective
complainants, e.g., LEGO Juris A/S v. Privacydotlink Customer 4425657 / Xue Hu, WIPO Case No.
D2021-1882.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. ...See, for instance, Bulgari S.p.A. v. xue
hu, WIPO Case No. D2022-3650, and LEGO Juris A/S v. Privacydotlink Customer 4425657 / Xue Hu, WIPO
Case No. D2021-1882. Such a prior record of the Respondent indicates engagement in a pattern of
registering domain names corresponding to trademarks held by third parties, which, as a rule, cannot
constitute any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. ...
2024-05-28 - Case Details
Moreover, previous Panels found confusing similarity in cases involving combinations of complainants’ trademarks with the element “group”. See, inter alia, LEGO Juris A/S v. Djuradj Caranovic,
WIPO Case No. D2021-2641, where the Panel held that “Accordingly, the addition of the descriptive term ‘group’ does not dispel the confusing similarity arising from the incorporation of Complainant’s LEGO trademark in the disputed domain name”. ...
2022-05-20 - Case Details
In previous decisions, UDRP panels found that 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 (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. ...D2002-0770; Sanofi-Aventis v. Abigail Wallace,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0735; LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494).
Furthermore, in the present case, the disputed domain name is active, and the evidence provided shows that the Respondent is attempting to associate itself with the Complainant and its products sold under the IQOS trademarks. ...
2018-09-27 - Case Details
Also, it is asserted that the mere addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.info” is of no consequence when conducting a confusing similarity test, following LEGO Juris A/S v. Legooutletlegooutlet.info Dot InFo, legooutlet.info,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0351.
5.2 The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name in that the Respondent is neither affiliated with the Complainant in any way nor has the Respondent been authorized by the Complainant to use and register its trademarks, or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating the Complainant’s trademark. ...See also further in this regard the decisions in TREDNET, Direct Distribution International Ltd (“DDI”) v. WhoisGuard Namecheap/BODYPOWER, supra; LEGO Juris A/S v. legooutlet.info Dot InFO, legooutlet.info, supra and Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. ...
2018-11-16 - Case Details
In this regard, attention has been drawn to the UDRP decisions in LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...Attention in this regard has been drawn to the earlier UDRP decisions LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494 and Caixa D'Estalvis I Pensions de Barcelona ("La Caixa") v. ...
2015-04-24 - Case Details
Respondent’s intentional use of that mark in its entirety in registering the Domain Name is evidence of bad faith registration. See Lego Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494; Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. v. Pitts,
WIPO Case No. ...While the Domain Name resolves to an inactive webpage, such passive holding of the Domain Name may still constitute bad faith use depending upon the attendant circumstances. WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 3.2. See, Lego Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494; Redcats S.A. and La Redoute S.A. v. Tumay Asena,
WIPO Case No. ...
2015-10-02 - Case Details
In previous UDRP decisions, panels found that in the absence of any license or permission from complainant to use a widely known trademark, 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 suggests opportunistic bad faith (LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494; Sanofi-Aventis v. Nevis Domains LLC,
WIPO Case No. ...
2018-03-14 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have 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 can reasonably be claimed. See, e.g., LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...Previous UDRP panels have held that the registration of a domain name obviously connected with well-known trademarks by someone without any connection to these trademarks suggests opportunistic bad faith. See, among others, LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494.
7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
...
2017-08-08 - Case Details
The Respondent is accordingly using the disputed domain name in bad faith to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade marks, as to the source, sponsorship or affiliation of the website resolved to by the disputed domain name; see LEGO Juris A/S v. Mansoureh Mirzaei Ghaleh Mirzaei,
WIPO Case No. DIR2014-0010.
The Respondent has also failed to reply to a cease and desist letter sent by the Complainant’s representatives on November 24, 2017. Previous panels have held that such a failure provides further evidence of a respondent’s bad faith; see, for example, LEGO Juris A/S v. Mostafa Barati Abyazani,
WIPO Case No. DIR2014-0007.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. ...
2018-04-25 - Case Details
D2000-0102; Sony Kabushiki Kaisha aka Sony Corporation v. A. Smith,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0652; LEGO Juris A/S v. Masayuki Sato,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1639).
Therefore, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CAM4 trademark.
...Gerardo Saavedra
Sole Panelist
Dated: September 5, 2012
1 Similar situations in LEGO Juris A/S v. Charlie Carmichael,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1507 and in World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. ...
2012-09-13 - Case Details
D2009-0558(finding that addition of the term “movies” to complainant’s BLACKBERRY mark in the disputed domain name did “not change the possibility of confusion” as “[m]any Internet users would suppose that the Domain Name refers to a website of or was authorized by the Complainant to sell downloadable movie services for BLACKBERRY.”); Lego Juris A/S v. Domain Mgmt.,
WIPO Case No. D2012-2476 (finding disputed domain name was confusingly similar to the LEGO mark).
...Courts and previous administrative panels have long recognized that consumers expect domain names incorporating a company’s name or mark to lead to a website maintained by or affiliated with the trademark owner. See e.g. Lego Juris A/S v. wenjie,
WIPO Case No. D2012-2439 (noting in support of domain name transfer that “people considering the disputed domain name without awareness of its content may think that it is in some way connected and associated with the complainant: this situation is known as ‘initial interest confusion’ ”).
...
2015-04-23 - Case Details
Privacy—protect.org / Rampe Purda,
WIPO Case No. D2010-2143; LEGO Juris A/S v. Mariusz Zielezny,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0796; and Accor S.A. v. jacoop.org.,
WIPO Case No. ...It has been held in previous cases that knowledge of a corresponding mark at the time of the domain name’s registration suggests bad faith, LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494; and Caixa D’Estalvis i Pensions de Barcelona (“La Caixa”) v. ...
2012-03-01 - Case Details
In further support the Complainant refers to the passive parking of the Disputed Domain Name
and the activated MX records pointing to amazon servers as further evidence of the Respondent’s actual
knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark following LEGO Juris A/S v. nam Jong Gang, WIPO Case
No. DCO2021-0058.
5.4 Fourthly, the Complainant submits that since the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a parked page with
hyperlinks featuring keywords that link to advertisements for third parties offering health related services, and
the Respondent generates income through “click through” revenue derived from the Disputed Domain Name,
such activity is further evidence of bad faith registration and use according to the Policy. ...Privacy
service provided by Withheld for Privacy erf/Oren Harrison, Pacific States Insulation and Acoustical
Contracting Inc. WIPO Case No. D2022-1977 and LEGO Juris A/S v. nam jong Gang, supra.
6.9 Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial
gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the
Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website
or location. ...
2022-11-03 - Case Details
La incorporación de la marca famosa FORD en el nombre de dominio en disputa es motivo suficiente para establecer un registro de mala fe atendiendo al uso del nombre de dominio en disputa y a las circunstancias del caso (ver Nike, Inc. v. B.B. de Boer,
Caso OMPI No. D2000-1397; ver LEGO Juris A/S v. pcmaniabg, Paisiy Aleksandrov,OMPI Caso No. D2010-1965; L’Oréal v. Li Qian, Fast Hand Limited and Lisa,
Caso OMPI No. ...El nombre de dominio en disputa se ha utilizado de manera intencionada con el fin de atraer, con ánimo de lucro, usuarios de Internet al sitio Web al que resuelve dicho nombre de dominio en disputa, creando un riesgo de confusión por asociación con la marca FORD en cuanto a la fuente, patrocinio, afiliación y promoción del citado sitio Web. (ver LEGO Juris A/S v. pcmaniabg, Paisiy Aleksandrov,
Caso OMPI No. D2010-1965; Etihad Airways c. Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp,
Caso OMPI No. ...
2019-08-14 - Case Details
D2006-1475 (finding ,new-adobe.net> confusingly similar to complainant's ADOBE mark); see also LEGO Juris A/S v. Ranan Lachman,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0915 (finding confusingly similar to complainant's LEGO mark).
...
2014-12-18 - Case Details
关于"love"，该部分可翻译为"爱"，属于通用词汇，它跟"Marlboro"在一起可翻译为"喜欢Marlboro"。专家组认定该部分不具有区别争议域名与投诉人商标的效果（参见LEGO Juris A/S 诉Wang Peng，WIPO案件编号D2012-2447 及Revlon Consumer Products Corporation 诉 Brandy Farris，WIPO案件编号D2003-0291）。关于通用顶级域名，专家组认为该部分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）。...
2015-12-18 - Case Details
These allegations make out a prima facie case of lack of rights or legitimate interests, which Respondent has not rebutted. See LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Hostmaster,
WIPO Case No. ...In the absence of contrary evidence, the Panel finds that Respondent knew or should have known of Complainant’s trademark at the time when the disputed domain names were registered.”); LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494 (“This Panel agrees with previous Policy decisions to the effect that ‘knowledge of a corresponding mark at the time of registration of the domain name suggests bad faith’. [….] ...
2018-02-23 - Case Details
Secondly, the Respondent reproduces the Complainant's trademark without any license or authorization from the Complainant's company, which is strong evidence of the lack of legitimate interest. The Complainant refers to LEGO Juris A/S v. Ibnu Firdaus,
WIPO Case No. D2012-1336.
Thirdly, the Respondent demonstrates no intent to use the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. ...The Panel accepts that the Respondent is not commercially linked to the Complainant and that the Respondent reproduces the Complainant's trademark without any license or authorization from the Complainant's company and that this is strong evidence of the lack of legitimate interest as found in LEGO Juris A/S v. Ibnu Firdaus,
WIPO Case No. D2012-1336.
The Panel accepts that the Respondent has demonstrated no intent to use the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
...
2017-01-04 - Case Details