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, WIPO Case
No. D2019-0245; Facebook Inc. v. te5gfh gtfghbfh, supra. ...
2022-11-23 - Case Details
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
trademarks suggests opportunistic bad faith (see LEGO Juris A/S v. store24hour, WIPO Case No.
D2013-0091). Given the strong reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, registration in bad faith
can be inferred in this case.
...
2022-11-22 - 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. ...
2023-01-19 - Case Details
Sportswear
Company S.P.A. v. Tang Hong, WIPO Case No. D2014-1875; LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David
Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master, WIPO Case No. ...
2023-01-19 - Case Details
D2014-1875 (“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 Disputed 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. ...
2023-01-12 - Case Details
In
the absence of any license or permission from the Complainant to use its trademarks, no bona fide or
legitimate use of the disputed domain name could reasonably be claimed under the circumstances of this
case (see, e.g., Sportswear Company S.P.A. v. Tang Hong, WIPO Case No. D2014-1875; LEGO Juris A/S
v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master, WIPO
Case No. ...
2022-07-18 - Case Details
Prior
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 trademarks suggests
opportunistic bad faith (see LEGO Juris A/S v. store24hour, WIPO Case No. D2013-0091). Given the strong
reputation and distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademark, registration in bad faith can be inferred.
...
2023-02-21 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that the addition of a descriptive term to a disputed domain name that incorporates a trademark in its entirety typically does not prevent the finding of confusing similarity. See LEGO Juris A/S v. DBA David Inc/ DomainsByProxy.com,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1290.
For all the foregoing reasons, the Panel finds that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has therefore been satisfied by the Complainant.
...
2022-01-04 - Case Details
Rohan mubbahir Kahn, WIPO Case
No. D2021-1314; LEGO Juris A/S v. John Davis, WIPO Case No. D2018-0313 and Victorinox AG v. Andre
Freitas, Result Capital WIPO Case No. ...
2023-05-04 - 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. ...
2023-05-19 - Case Details
Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Carolina Rodrigues,
Fundacion Comercio Electronico, WIPO Case No. D2019-3045; LEGO Juris A/S v. Registration
Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, WIPO Case
No. ...
2023-09-19 - Case Details
In the absence of any license or
permission from the Complainant to use its trademarks, no bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed
domain name could reasonably be claimed in the circumstances of this case (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.
...
2023-06-23 - Case Details
A gTLD suffix generally has no capacity to dispel confusing similarity with a trademark as it is typically disregarded under the first element test. See Lego Juris A/S v. Chen Yong,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1611; Dr. Ing. H.c. F. Porsche AG v. zhanglei,
WIPO Case No. ...
2016-11-02 - 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 considering Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names(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. ...
2018-05-25 - Case Details
Previous 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.
At the time of initial filing of the Complaint, the Respondent employed a privacy service to hide his identity, which past panels have held serves as further evidence of bad faith registration and use. ...
2016-09-20 - Case Details
Dublin) Limited v. Dejan Macesic,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1698; and LEGO Juris A/S v. Andrew Orr,
WIPO Case No. D2015-1311).
The website to which the disputed domain name resolves features advertisements associated with third parties. ...
2016-10-20 - Case Details
It has been held in previous UDRP decisions that knowledge of a corresponding mark at the time of the domain name's registration can suggest bad faith. See LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494; Caixa D'Estalvis i Pensions de Barcelona ("La Caixa") v. ...
2016-10-12 - Case Details
关于该些字母，专家组认为它们都不具有区别争议域名与投诉人商标的显著效果。关于通用顶级域名后缀，专家组认为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）。...
2016-11-14 - Case Details
其唯一其余部分为一个顶级域名后缀“.mom”，可译为“妈妈”。专家组认为该顶级域名后缀在本案中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）。...
2016-11-08 - Case Details
A TLD suffix generally has no capacity to distinguish a domain name from a trademark for the purposes of a comparison under the Policy. See Lego Juris A/S v. Chen Yong,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1611; Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. zhanglei,
WIPO Case No. ...
2016-12-14 - Case Details