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
Bad faith has already been formed 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. ...Bad faith has already been established 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. ...
2012-03-30 - Case Details
参见Aventis Pharma SA., Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH 诉 Jonathan Valicenti，WIPO 案件编号D2005-0037和LEGO Juris A/S诉Chen Yong，WIPO 案件编号D2009-1611。
因此，专家组认为争议域名与投诉人的PORSCHE商标混淆性相似。投诉人完成了政策第4条(a)项所规定的第一个要素的举证责任。
...见Jupiters Limited 诉 Aaron Hall， WIPO案件编号D2000-0574和LEGO Juris A/S诉Chen Yong，WIPO案件编号D2009-1611。
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PORSCHE是投诉人拥有的商标。
投诉人提交的证据证明，通过争议域名指向网站上提供的联系方式（包括电话及传真），消费者联系到的公司是“北京中汽通达伟业汽车销售有限公司”，但是该公司并非投诉人在中国的授权经销商。...
2013-02-22 - Case Details
In previous decisions, UDRP panels found that in the absence of any license or permission from the 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 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. ...
2013-12-18 - Case Details
As the Respondent was not party to any of these 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 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. ...
2014-03-14 - Case Details
As the Respondent was not party to any of these 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 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. ...
2014-05-13 - Case Details
D2009-0798 (finding that domain names and gave the overall impression of being associated with Complainant’s WIKIPEDIA Mark); see also LEGO Juris A/S v. Onliyou,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1410 (finding that the addition of the prefix “93” in the domain name <93lego.com> failed to prevent the disputed domain name from being regarded as confusingly similar to the LEGO trademark).
...
2014-05-26 - Case Details
Moreover, in the circumstances of this case, the lack of any authorization for Respondent to use
Complainant’s trademark, and Respondent’s failure to respond to Complainant’s cease-and-desist
communications, further supports the absence of rights or legitimate interests. See LEGO Holding A/S v.
TAN VAN LE, Legotalk, WIPO Case No. D2025-2877 (finding a lack of rights or legitimate interests where,
among other things, “the Complainant has demonstrated that it has not granted the Respondent any license,
authorization or permission to use the LEGO trademark in the disputed domain name, [n]or is the
Complainant otherwise affiliated with the Respondent”); Fenix International Limited c/o Walters Law Group
v. ...
2025-10-16 - Case Details
Panels have previously held that rights or legitimate interests
cannot be created where the user of the domain name at issue would not choose such names unless he was
seeking to create an impression of association with the complainant (see LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark
Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master, WIPO Case No.
...Panels have previously held that a finding of bad faith can be established where a complainant’s trademark
is shown to be well-known or in wide use at the time of registration of the disputed domain name (see LEGO
Juris A/S v. store24hour, WIPO Case No. D2013-0091). The Respondent is likely to have been fully aware
of the Complainant and the Complainant’s Trademark when it registered the Disputed Domain Name, given
the well-known nature of the Complainant’s brand, evidenced by the various trademark registrations for the
Complainant’s Trademark across the globe that was put into use well before the Respondent registered the
Disputed Domain Name. ...
2024-08-27 - Case Details
UDRP panels have found that a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark where the disputed domain name incorporates the complainant’s trademark in its entirety (e.g. LEGO Juris A/S v. ken Teo,
WIPO Case No. D2020-2380; Sanofi v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Todd Peter,
WIPO Case No. ...Registration of the disputed domain name in awareness of the reputed MICHELIN mark and in the absence of rights or legitimate interests in this case amounts to registration in bad faith (see, e.g., LEGO Juris A/S v. ken Teo,
WIPO Case No. D2020-2380; Sanofi v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Todd Peter, supra; Virgin Enterprises Limited v. ...
2021-03-04 - Case Details
If a respondent fails to come forward with relevant evidence to rebut the prima facie showing, a complainant is deemed to have proven that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, satisfying the second element. Id.; LEGO Juris A/S v. Aamir Abdul Wahid, Spiro Line Media
WIPO Case No. D2019-0245.
Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has proven the second element, namely, that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
...Additionally, previous panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous trademark can create a presumption of bad faith registration. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4; LEGO Juris A/S v. Aamir Abdul Wahid, Spiro Line Media, supra; Facebook Inc. v. te5gfh gtfghbfh, supra.
...
2020-03-23 - Case Details
In previous decisions, UDRP panels found that in the absence of any license or permission from the 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. ...In fact, 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. store24hour,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0091; Lancôme Parfums et Beauté & Cie, L’Oréal v. 10 Selling,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-01-15 - Case Details
If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. (see, e.g. LEGO Juris A/S v. Anton Obrezkov,
WIPO Case No. DUA2020-0001).
The Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks any right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
...The website found at the disputed domain name has no visible disclaimer stating that the website is neither endorsed nor sponsored by the Complainant to explain the non-existing relationship with the trademark holder (see also LEGO Juris A/S v. Anton Obrezkov,
WIPO Case No. DUA2020-0001). Furthermore, the Respondent states to be the official representative of the Complainant in Ukraine and notes to be in direct contact with the Complainant, which it is clearly not.
...
2021-03-17 - Case Details
D2001-1364 (la marca ZURICH debe estimarse como notoriamente conocida en relación con servicios financieros y de seguros); LEGO Juris A/S v. Mohamed Ouattara / Integral Assets Ltd,
Caso OMPI No. D2009-0564 (concluyendo similitud en grado de confusión del nombre de dominio por incluir íntegramente una marca notoriamente conocida como LEGO) y V&S Vin&Sprit AB v. ...
2010-03-10 - Case Details
Natural Resources, Inc. v.Rampe Purda / Privacy--Protect.org,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0720; LEGO Juris A/S v. Rampe Purda,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0840; L’Oréal v. Rampe Purda / Privacy--Protect.org,
WIPO Case No. ...D2010-0636, the same methodology was employed, as was also the case in LEGO Juris A/S v. Rampe Purda,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0840, and is the case here.
In the light of such a pattern of abusive behavior associated with the name Rampe Purda, the Panel has no hesitation in accepting Complainant's submissions in connection with registration and use in bad faith in the present case, and, accordingly, decides that Complainant has also satisfied the test set out in paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy”.)
...
2011-04-08 - Case Details
Internet bs Corporation/ Private Whois Service,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1657 and LEGO Juris A/S v. Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. / Domains Secured, LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1857. ...It is undoubtedly contrary to its spirit.”
6.11 The reasoning in the Lego and Four Seasons Hotels Limited cases supra relied upon (a) the wording of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement then in place, (b) the fact that paragraph 2(a)(i)(b) of the Rules assumes that a Registrar would have disclosed to a UDRP provider the billing information in its possession, and (c) that a practice had grown up by that time on the part of reputable registrars of disclosing this information as a matter of course in response to a verification request.
6.12 Since then, matters have moved on somewhat. ...
2019-11-20 - Case Details
It should be noted, that panels found the confusing similarity in circumstances involving a “trademark + games” domain names in earlier UDRP cases. See. e.g. LEGO Juris A/S v. Saputro Wijayanto,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0916, ( et al.); as well as RealNetworks, Inc. v. ...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. ...
2014-07-09 - Case Details
Furthermore, the Respondent's "About Us" section of the website repeatedly refers to the operator or source of the website as Cool Math Games, a mark identical to the name of a website operated by Complainant and confusingly similar to the Complainant's COOLMATH mark. LEGO Juris A/S v. I Made Irawan, - DRI-110993,
WIPO Case No. D2014-1538 (Finding no bona fide offering when respondent declared in its "about us" information that it was a distributor of LEGO products and led users to believe that was related to complainant by use of a slogan of the complainant).
...
2015-05-27 - Case Details
The Panel recognizes that, under certain circumstances, use of a domain name confusingly similar to a
complainant’s trademark in connection with a website offering gambling services may constitute bad faith.
For example, in LEGO Juris A/S v. jiarong tang, WIPO Case No. D2023-0432, the panel wrote: “By using
the disputed domain name to resolve to a website containing pornographic content with gambling
advertisements and where confusion with a well-known trademark is used to divert unsuspecting Internet
users to such website for commercial purposes by fostering a belief that the disputed domain name belongs
to, is associated with, or connected to the Complainant, amounts to bad faith.” However, in that case, the
panel found that the relevant trademark, LEGO, was “registered around the world, including China, the
United States of America… and the European Union”, leading to the conclusion that “[i]t is inconceivable for
this Panel that the Respondent registered or has used the disputed domain name without knowledge of the
Complainant’s rights, which leads to the necessary inference of bad faith”. ...
2023-04-24 - Case Details