Incorporation of the BELSTAFF mark in the Domain Names in the absence of any rights or legitimate interests and reasonable justification is, to the Panel, sufficient evidence of bad faith by the Respondent under the Policy. See LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494; and Caixa D’Estalvis I Pensions de Barcelona (“La Caixa”) v. ...
2012-07-13 - Case Details
Therefore, the Complainant states that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
In addition, the Complainant referred to LEGO Juris A/S v. Probuilders,
WIPO Case No. D2011-0226 and stated that the ELECTROLUX logo is displayed on the website connected to the disputed domain name and this implies a connection between the Respondent and the Complainant.
...
2012-07-10 - Case Details
In addition, the Complainant’s mark is not famous, triggering the assumption of global awareness of the well-known mark (see e contrario, LEGO Juris A/S v. softwareegypt,
WIPO Case No. D2012-1238). The Complainant has further not submitted any other proof showing that the Respondent should or could have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark for other reasons, i.e., that it had been specifically aware of the Complainant’s registration.
...
2012-10-22 - Case Details
As it has been decided by previous panels, the mere addition of the generic acronym “www” does not eliminate the confusing similarity between a complainant's marks and a domain name (see e.g. LEGO Juris A/S v. Bladimir Boyiko,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0437; The Nasday OMX Group, Inc. v. Eli Shoval,
WIPO Case No. ...
2010-07-15 - Case Details
Mohammad Ali Mokhtari,
WIPO Case No. DIR2010-0007.
2 Similar situations in LEGO Juris A/S v. Charlie Carmichael,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1507 and in OLX Inc. and OLX S.A. v. Anis Ahmad,
WIPO Case No. ...
2013-08-02 - Case Details
Given the reputation of the LAMBORGHINI trademark and the unlikelihood of the Respondent selecting the
disputed domain name for registration by chance, the Panel infers that the registration of the disputed
domain name was in bad faith. See, e.g., LEGO Juris A/S v. Floyd Goddard/ Oneandone, Private
Registration, WIPO Case No. D2010-0544, in which the UDRP panel stated: “The Panel, in accordance with
previous decisions issued under the UDRP, is of the opinion that actual knowledge of the Complainant’s
trademarks and activities at the time of the registration of the disputed domain may be considered an
inference of bad faith.”
...
2023-03-28 - Case Details
In the absence of any license or permission from the
Complainant to use its trademarks, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed
domain name could reasonably be claimed (see, e.g., Sportswear Company S.PA. v. Tang Hong, WIPO
Case No. D2014-1875; and LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy,
Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master, WIPO Case No. ...
2023-03-13 - Case Details
The Panel also observes that the Respondent has been the unsuccessful respondent in numerous other
UDRP proceedings that are easily located by a search of the Center’s public website. See, e.g., LEGO Juris
A/S v. Client Care, Web Commerce Communications Limited, WIPO Case No. D2023-0915, and Benetton
Group S.R.L. v. ...
2023-10-12 - Case Details
Super
Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot et al., WIPO Case No. D2021-2193; LEGO Juris A/S v. Domain
Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org, et al., WIPO Case No. D2020-3305.
...
2023-12-21 - Case Details
Where the
trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms – whether
descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise – would not prevent a f inding of confusing
similarity under the first element (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8; and LEGO Juris A/S v. DBA David Inc/
DomainsByProxy.com, WIPO Case No. D2011-1290).
Furthermore, it is generally maintained that the addition of a gTLD is a standard registration requirement.
...
2023-11-24 - Case Details
Noting the composition of the disputed domain name being
nearly identical to the Complainant’s trademark, in the circumstances of this case, no actual or contemplated
bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain names could reasonably be claimed (see, e.g.,
Sportswear Company S.P.A. v. Tang Hong, WIPO Case No. D2014-1875; and LEGO Juris A/S v.
DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master, WIPO
Case No. ...
2024-11-06 - Case Details
Complete Administrative au stabilit anterior că o constatare a relei-credințe poate fi stabilită atunci când
marca comercială a unui reclamant este demonstrată a fi bine cunoscută sau în largă utilizare la momentul
înregistrării numelui de domeniu in litigiu (vezi LEGO Juris A/S v. store24hour, WIPO Case No.
D2013-0091). Paratul trebuie să fi fost pe deplin conștient de Reclamant și de Marca Comercială a
Reclamantului atunci când a înregistrat Numele de Domeniu in Litigiu având în vedere natura bine
cunoscută a MărciiReclamantului, evidențiată de diversele înregistrări de mărci comerciale a Mărcii
Reclamantului la nivel global, care au fost puse în utilizare cu mult înainte ca Pârâtul să înregistreze Numele
de Domeniu în Litigiu, și faptul că Website-ul Respondentului s-a identificat ca “AdBlue® Shop” și a oferit
spre vânzare produse AdBlue® și echipamentele relevante.
...
2024-11-27 - Case Details
In the absence of any license or
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 5
permission from the Complainant to use its trademarks, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate
use of the disputed domain name could reasonably be claimed (see, e.g., Sportswear Company S.PA. v.
Tang Hong, WIPO Case No. D2014-1875; and LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith,
Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master, WIPO Case No. ...
2024-08-19 - Case Details
The Panel
finds that the Respondent does not so much use the disputed domain name to notify Internet users of a
potential claim against the Complainant or misconduct by the Complainant, but instead primarily to sell
2In view of the fact that the Regulations are based on the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”), it is well
established that cases decided under both the Regulations and the UDRP, and therefore WIPO Overview 3.0, may be relevant to the
determination of this proceeding (see, e.g., LEGO Juris A/S v. Stichting RIBW ZWWF, WIPO Case No. DNL2011-0042 and Arie Hendrik
den Draak v. RAPIDE Internet, WIPO Case No. ...
2024-12-11 - Case Details
The Panel also finds applicable to this case the position on the use of English as the fairest neutral
language, stated by previous UDRP panels under similar scenarios (see LEGO Juris A/S v. Asiagroup,
WIPO Case No. D2022-2829; IPSOS v. Beats, WIPO Case No. D2022-1055). The Panel would have
considered a Response in Ukrainian, but no response was submitted.
...
2024-10-10 - Case Details
The Complainant points to previous UDRP decisions in which 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 (LEGO Juris A/S v.
DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master, WIPO
Case No. ...
2024-05-27 - Case Details
Noting the
composition of the disputed domain names, in the absence of any license or permission from the
Complainant to use its trademarks, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed
domain name could reasonably be claimed (see, e.g., Sportswear Company S.PA. v. Tang Hong, WIPO
Case No. D2014-1875; and LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy,
Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master, WIPO Case No. ...
2024-10-07 - Case Details
Noting the composition of the
disputed domain name, in the absence of any license or permission from the Complainant to use its
trademarks, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain name could
reasonably be claimed (see, e.g., Sportswear Company S.PA. v. Tang Hong, WIPO Case No. D2014-1875;
and LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd,
Host master, WIPO Case No. ...
2024-11-12 - Case Details
It is well-established that typically in the absence of any license or permission from a complainant to use the complainant’s trademarks, no 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. ...
2018-01-10 - Case Details
Ravi Gurnani Gurnani,
Caso OMPI No. DES2006-0001; LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
Caso OMPI No. ...
2018-01-10 - Case Details