As the Respondent was not a party 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 these decisions is not evidence in this matter or binding on the Panel. (LEGO Juris A/S v. Administration Dominious,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0265; LEGO Juris A/S v. Michael Fainstein,
WIPO Case No. ...
2017-02-02 - 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; Sperre Mek. Verksted AS v. ...Moreover, 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. ...
2019-11-05 - 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
D2003-0038, the
Panel concluded:
“The addition of the generic word “club” does nothing to detract from the instant identification with Complainant conveyed by the mark and instead suggests a club for people interested in Complainant’s toys, precisely the service provided by Complainant under its LEGO mark at its website. …
Accordingly, the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s famous LEGO mark.”
...
2006-06-29 - Case Details
In so doing it adopts the reasoning in Baccarat SA v. Value-Domain Com,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1186; Lego Juris A/S v. Mohamed Ouattara / Integral Assets Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0564 and Ticketmaster Corporation v. ...
2015-11-19 - Case Details
D2003-0981 ; for a recent decision, cf. Lego Juris A/S v. Andre Lubrich,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1287 ).
Since the disputed domain name is thus confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks, the Complainant has fulfilled paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2010-07-30 - 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. Sadly, the fact that this has happened twice already seems to have no impact on the Registrar’s conduct.
6.9 It is the present Panel’s usual (but not invariable) practice where it is likely to make comments in a publically available decision that is critical of a registrar and/or to suggest to the Center that the registrar’s conduct be referred to ICANN to issue a procedural order providing the registrar with an opportunity to respond to those potential criticisms (see, for example, the LEGO Juris A/S decision supra). This opportunity has been offered as a matter of procedural fairness. However, in this case the Panel did not issue such an order. ...
2012-01-19 - Case Details
In previous decisions, panels held that in the absence of any license or permission from a complainant to
use a widely-known trademark, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the domain name
reasonably could be claimed (, LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain
Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master, WIPO Case No. ...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 trademark suggests
opportunistic bad faith (WIPO Case No. D2013-0091, LEGO Juris A/S v. store24hour; WIPO Case
No. D2008-0226, Lancôme Parfums et Beauté & Cie, L’Oréal v. 10 Selling; WIPO Case No. ...
2022-09-28 - Case Details
These allegations make out a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the
disputed domain name, which Respondent has not rebutted. See, e.g., LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd,
David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master, WIPO Case No.
...These allegations make out a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, which Respondent has not rebutted. See, e.g., LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Tra...
In addition, considering the use of the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant and allegedly commit fraud under the guise of the Complainant, the Panel finds that the use of the disputed domain name does not confer rights or legitimate in...
...
2023-02-20 - Case Details
In previous UDRP decisions, 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 names 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. ...
2018-07-10 - Case Details
Panels found that in the absence of any license or permission from Complainant to use such widely-known trademarks, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the domain names 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. ...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 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. ...
2019-10-18 - Case Details
In the case at hand, the Panel finds that adding the generic words “outlet”, “online” and “sale” to the CLARISONIC trademarks does not render the Domain Name less confusingly similar to the CLARISONIC trade marks (see, e.g., Lego Juris A/S v. Thomas Plaut,
WIPO Case No. D2012-1822; L’Oréal, Lancôme Parfums Et Beauté & Cie v. Jack Yang,
WIPO Case No. ...Whois ID Theft Protection,
WIPO Case No. D2006-1435; and LEGO Juris A/S v. SAKCHAI SRION,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0604). With specific regard to “outlet”, “online” and “sale” see, e.g., Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. mei xudong,
WIPO Case No. ...
2014-04-28 - Case Details
D2004-0961; Groupe Auchan v Anirban Mitra,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0412; LEGO Juris A/S v Michael Fainshtein,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0464).
The fact that the word trademark has been incorporated entirely into the disputed domain name is sufficient to establish that it is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered trademark (See Quixtar Investments Inc v Dennis Hoffmann,
WIPO Case No. ...Whether or not the Respondent is personally the beneficiary or whether the revenue accrues elsewhere does not, in the view of the Panel, detract from the notion that any gain so sought to be derived need not be derived by a respondent itself in that it is sufficient if a third party stands to reap the profits of wrongful conduct (See Villeroy & Bosch A G v Mario Pingerna,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1912; LEGO Juris A/S, supra).
The implication arising from the disputed domain name, in the mind of a would-be customer, is therefore clearly that it is either of or in some way associated with the Complainant, which in turn, in the view of the Panel, leads to the inescapable conclusion that such potential customer is invited to do business with either the Complainant itself or someone authorized on its behalf in relation to its goods. ...
2013-09-18 - Case Details
Above.com Domain Privacy/ Transure Enter. Ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0630 (July 3, 2009); LEGO Juris A/S v. Shu Lin/Transure Enter. Ltd/Above.com Domain Privacy,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1648 (Nov. 19, 2010); F. ...Ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1986 (Jan. 19, 2011); LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enter. Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-01-18 - Case Details
Technology Services Ltd,
WIPO Case No. DNL2008-0002 and LEGO Juris A/S v. M. Moench,
WIPO Case No. DNL2009-0052).
It appears that after the termination of the Distribution Agreement, R&B no longer had the right to use the Trademark to promote CULT energy drinks. ...
2011-09-01 - Case Details
Where a domain name is so obviously connected with a well-known trademark, its very use by someone with no connection to the trademark suggests opportunistic bad faith (see, e.g., LEGO Juris A/S v. store24hour;
WIPO Case No. D2013-0091; Lancôme parfums et Beauté & Cie, L’Oréal v 10 Selling,
WIPO Case No. ...
2016-08-25 - Case Details
The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. LEGO Juris A/S v. PrivacyProtect.org/ThaiSerVerOnLinE, Mr.Sagsan Phurahong,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0711; Audi AG v. ...
2012-06-13 - Case Details
Further evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith is that a simple trademark search at the time of registering the disputed domain name would have revealed the Complainant’s trademarks (see LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host Master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-02-28 - Case Details
The Panel holds that in the present circumstances, the Complainant has established the second element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. LEGO Juris A/S v. PrivacyProtect.org/ThaiSerVerOnLinE, Mr. Sagsan Phurahong,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0711; Audi AG v. ...
2010-10-28 - Case Details