WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
LEGO Juris A/S v. Wang Keke
Case No. D2014-2003
1. The Parties
The Complainant is LEGO Juris A/S of Billund, Denmark, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Wang Keke of Shenshuibu, Hong Kong, China.
2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names <legomvp.com>, <legosun.com>, <legowin.com>, <lego1004.com>, <lego222.com>, <lego333.com>, <lego555.com>, <lego77.com>, <lego777.com>, <livelego.com>, <24lego.com> and <77lego.com> are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 13, 2014. On November 13, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On the same date, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 20, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 10, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 11, 2014.
The Center appointed Martin Schwimmer as the sole panelist in this matter on December 29, 2014. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
4. Factual Background
The Complainant is the owner of the LEGO trademark and all other trademarks used in connection with the famous LEGO brands of construction toys and other LEGO branded products.
The Respondent registered the twelve domain names (the “Domain Names”) identified above, on August 5, 2014. The Complainant alleges that all twelve Domain Names resolved or re-directed to a log-in page for what it characterizes as a Korean betting site, bearing the words “LEGOBET. SPORTS BETTING LEADER”.
The Respondent did not respond to the Complainant’s demand letter. The postal address in its WhoIs listings does not appear to be a true street address.
5. Parties’ Contentions
The Complainant owns the LEGO trademark (the “Trademark”). It proffered sufficient evidence of registration and use of the LEGO trademark in Hong Kong, China (the domicile of the Respondent according to WhoIs) and Republic of Korea (taking into consideration that the Respondent’s websites seem to be targeted at Korean-speakers). The Complainant provided substantial evidence that its LEGO trademark is famous, noting that many UDRP panels have found as such.
The Complainant notes that all the Domain Names incorporate the LEGO trademark, and either a non-distinctive prefix or suffix, namely “777”, “77”, “555”, “333”, “222”, “1004”, “24”, “mvp”, “win”, “sun”, and “live”.
The Respondent does not own trademarks or trade names or domain names reflecting the Domain Names, nor is it identified in the WhoIs entries in any manner that reflects the Domain Names. The Respondent is not a related company of the Complainant, nor associated in any way with the Complainant, nor authorized in any way to utilize the LEGO trademark. The unauthorized use of the LEGO trademark to attract customers to what appears to be a Korean betting site, cannot be a bona fide offering of goods or services.
Because of the fame of the LEGO trademark, the Respondent was obviously aware of the Complainant’s rights prior to obtaining the Domain Names.
The Respondent did not acknowledge the Complainant’s demand letter, which set out the Complainant’s rights in the Trademark.
The Respondent’s use of the Complainant’s famous trademark to attract traffic to its betting site, constitutes bad faith registration and use.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Respondent’s Domain Names incorporate the Complainant’s famous LEGO trademark in their entirety. It is the consensus view of UDRP panels to usually disregard the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix, as well as non-distinctive terms such as “win” or “77”. The Panel views the eleven different terms added to the Domain Names as not sufficiently distinctive to prevent confusion with the famous LEGO mark. The Panel holds that pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s LEGO mark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no form of association with the Complainant that would allow it to utilize the Complainant’s trademark. Furthermore, the Respondent’s name does not reflect the Trademark. Finally, the Respondent’s use of the Trademark in connection with the log-in page for a betting site labeled as “LEGOBET”, cannot be a bona fide use of the Domain Names. These allegations constitute a prima facie showing that none of the three (non-exhaustive) circumstances establishing rights or legitimate interests in a domain name according to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy apply, thus shifting the burden of production on to the Respondent.
The Respondent has not submitted a response to address these allegations, and thus the Panel finds that the Complainant has established an un-rebutted prima facie case and concludes that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is satisfied.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant has provided ample evidence that its LEGO mark is famous. It has established use and registration of its mark in the Respondent’s purported domicile, Hong Kong, China and in the Republic of Korea, which the Respondent’s website appears to target. The Respondent purportedly utilized the Trademark without authorization to offer betting services. It did not respond to the Complainant’s demand letter, nor did it respond to the contentions in the Complaint in this proceeding. Furthermore, it appears that the Respondent did not supply a valid address in its WhoIs listings. Finally, considering that the Respondent registered twelve domain names reflecting the LEGO mark, the Panel notes that evidence of multiple domain names reflecting the same famous trademark may in itself constitute evidence of a pattern of bad faith conduct. See, e.g., Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, WIPO Case No. D2000-1409.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the Domain Names were registered and used in bad faith, as outlined in paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Names <legomvp.com>, <legosun.com>, <legowin.com>, <lego1004.com>, <lego222.com>, <lego333.com>, <lego555.com>, <lego77.com>, <lego777.com>, <livelego.com>, <24lego.com> and <77lego.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
Date: December 30, 2014