Complainant
The Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights because:
a) “The dominant part of the Disputed Domain Names comprises the term ‘lego’, identical to the registered trademark LEGO, registered by Complainant as trademarks and domain names in numerous countries all over the world”;
b) “The fame of the LEGO Mark has been confirmed in numerous previous UDRP decisions”;
c) “[I]t is a long-established precedent that confusing similarity is generally recognized when well-known trademarks are paired up with different kinds of generic prefixes and suffixes” and “In this case, the numerical suffixes do not detract from the overall impression”;
d) “The addition of the Top-Level Domain (TLD) (.SPACE) does not have any impact on the overall impression of the dominant portion of the Disputed Domain Names and is therefore irrelevant to determine the confusing similarity between the trademark and the Disputed Domain Names”;
e) “[P]ersons seeing the Disputed Domain Names at issue, even without being aware of the content, are likely to think that the Disputed Domain Names are in some way connected to Complainant, when in fact it is not”;
f) “[T]there is a considerable risk that the trade public will perceive Respondent’s Disputed Domain Names either as domain names owned by Complainant, or that there is some kind of commercial relation with Complainant.”;
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names because:
a) “No license or authorization of any other kind, has been given by Complainant to Respondent, to use the LEGO Mark”;
b) “LEGO is a famous trademark worldwide.” and “use of such a trademark in a domain name would violate the rights of the trademark owner”;
c) “[U]se of a disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademarks to link to a website featuring pornographic or adult content evinces a lack of legitimate rights or interests”;
d) “As no evidence has been found that Respondent is using the name ‘lego’ as a company name or has any other legal rights in the name, it is quite clear that Respondent is simply trying to benefit from Complainant’s world famous trademark”;
The Disputed Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith because:
a) “[T]he LEGO Mark in combination with other words has always been attractive to domain name infringers”;
b) The registration date of each Disputed Domain Name “is subsequent to when the Complainant registered the LEGO Mark in Cambodia where the Respondent resides, and elsewhere, by decades.”;
c) “Respondent cannot claim to have been using the LEGO Mark, without being aware of Complainant’s rights to it”;
d) Despite that reminders were being sent, no reply was ever received to Complainant’s cease and desist letter sent to Respondent;
e) “Respondent has chosen a trademark, which is world famous for its construction toys, to attract visitors to the websites of adult content”; and
f) “Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use but is misleadingly diverting consumers for commercial gain.”
...
2020-05-21 - Case Details
D2010-0281 y Centre National d’Art et de Culture Georges Pompidou c. Desmet Studio’s y P. Weijenberg,
Caso OMPI No. DES2015-0016.
Por lo demás existe una admisión de control efectiva de los nombres de dominio en disputa por el Demandado.
...
2019-07-18 - Case Details
D2018-0387; SAP SE v. Lakshmi Reddy Bhumireddy and P. Hareesh,
WIPO Case No. D2017-0396; Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. Cameron Jackson,
WIPO Case No. ...
2018-12-06 - Case Details
John Adem,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1480; Gordon Sumner, p/k/a Sting v. Michael Urvan,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0596; The E.W. Scripps Company v. Sinologic Industries,
WIPO Case No. ...
2018-02-07 - Case Details
See, e.g.,SAP SE v. Lakshmi Reddy Bhumireddy and P. Hareesh, WIPOCase No. D2017-0396; Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. Cameron Jackson,
WIPO Case No. ...
2017-07-10 - Case Details
The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to intentionally trade on the well-known mark of another, in order to lure Internet users to a website unrelated to the trademark owner, cannot and does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services (Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847).
For the above cited reasons, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy are therefore fulfilled.
...
2014-03-06 - Case Details
Complainant shall make a prima facie showing that Respondent has no rights and interests in the disputed domain name; however, the burden of proof with respect to this element is light for Complainant.
p>Complainant has no relationship with Respondent whatsoever. Complainant has never authorized Respondent to register and/or use the disputed domain name or any other domain name.
...
2014-07-02 - Case Details
The Respondent asserts that his business model has been the subject of a declaratory judgment in the United States that stated that “[p]laintiff’s legitimate purpose seeking to certify the sending and receipt of emails, as described in the [court] Complaint, does not evidence a bad-faith intent to profit from the ‘registration, use or trafficking’ of a domain name.”
...
2015-01-16 - Case Details
The fact that the Respondent filed a trademark application for A HABER in Germany after receiving notice of the dispute by the Complainant is not sufficient, in the Panel’s view, to establish trademark rights in the disputed domain name, as the circumstances of the case suggest that this trademark was filed to circumvent the application of the Policy. See Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847; Chemical Works of Gedeon Richter Plc v. ...
2017-01-25 - Case Details
The Respondent referred to a judgment of November 5, 2014 of the United States District Court of Arizona between Yoyo.Email, LLC as plaintiff and Playinnovation, LTD. as defendant, which stated that “[p]laintiff’s legitimate purpose seeking to certify the sending and receipt of emails, as described in the Complaint, does not evidence a bad-faith intent to profit from the ‘registration, use or trafficking’ of a domain name.” ...
2015-05-13 - Case Details
As the panel concluded in an early and much-cited UDRP decision, Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847: “use which intentionally trades on the fame of another cannot constitute a ‘bona fide’ offering of goods or services. . . . ...
2015-05-13 - Case Details
D2000-0859; Monty and Pat Roberts, Inc. v. J. Bartell,
Caso OMPI No. D2000-0300; y J. P. Morgan & Co., Incorporated and Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York v. Resource Marketing,
Caso OMPI No. ...
2016-08-24 - Case Details
In support of that contention, Novo Point has submitted voluminous documents that purport to show that the disputed domain name has been under the same beneficial ownership since 2002 and that "Domain Vault is an imposter without legal rights" (Novo Point's submission at p. 4). Complainant argues that Novo Point was not the registrant of the disputed domain name at the time the Complaint was filed, had no direct or indirect ownership or agency relationship with Domain Vault, and that Novo Point lost control of the disputed domain name as a result of a U.S. federal district court order transferring the disputed domain name, and other domain names, that had been part of a receivership in a federal court action in the U.S. ...
2016-07-18 - Case Details
The specific cumulative circumstances in this case are indicative of bad faith on the part of the Respondent in its registration and/or use of the Domain Name (see The Coca-Cola Company v. P. Engbers,
WIPO Case No. DNL2012-0037; and Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. ...
2016-03-23 - Case Details
Furthermore, the Respondent does not have to sell at any price should it decide to continue with expanding it uses internally with its own business models.
(p) The Respondent did its proper due diligence in determining was generic for any use in the United States where it does all its business - including by searching the USPTO for GREENFORT and GREEN FORT trade marks prior to buying the Disputed Domain Name in the “SnapNames” auction. ...
2016-06-28 - Case Details
The Parties
The Complainant is Ebel International Limited of Hamilton, Bermuda, Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by Pacón - Schiantarelli (P&S), Germany.
The Respondent is Alan Brashear of Belle Plaine, Kansas, United States of America, represented by Estudio Jurídico “Abril” Abogados Asociados, Peru.
2. ...
2017-04-11 - Case Details
o) There is banner advertising at for the winebrands site.
(p) Respondent registered the business name ‘Orlando Wyndham Australia" to meet the requirements of the Registrar that all domain registrations made through Australian registrars must accord with a registered business name or company incorporation.
...
2002-10-15 - Case Details
Moreover, even if there
is use prior to being notified of the dispute, if that use is infringing, it
cannot be deemed legitimate. Madonna Ciccone p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi
and "Madonna.com", WIPO Case
No. D2000-0847 (October 12, 2000). Here, the use that had been
made of the domain name prior to receiving a
demand letter from Complainant was likely to cause confusion in that it suggested
that there was an official relationship between the website and Complainant
when none existed. ...
2002-07-03 - Case Details
In recommending against modification of the current treatment of personal names
under the UDRP, WIPO noted that "[p]ersons who have gained eminence and
respect, but who have not profited from their reputation in commerce, may not
avail themselves of the UDRP to protect their personal names against parasitic
registrations. ...
2003-03-07 - Case Details
Procédure
i) Langue
Sera préalablement évoquée la question de la langue de la procédure soulevée par la requérante dans sa plainte (p. 6), laquelle est soumise en langue française.
La requérante explique que l’unité d’enregistrement, la société Gandi, ayant contracté avec le défendeur, propose à ses clients une version française et anglaise du contrat d’enregistrement, sans préciser dans ses conditions générales si une des versions (française ou anglaise) prévaut sur l’autre.
...
2003-02-04 - Case Details