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
WhoisGuard Protected / Cindy Smith,
WIPO Case No. D2019-0941; LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...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 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. ...
2022-02-28 - Case Details
This Panel finds, similarly to other UDRP panels, that the Oki Data criteria are appropriate even when the respondent is not an authorised reseller, such as it is the case in this proceeding (LEGO Juris A/S v. Daniel Aziz,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1829; National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc. v. ...Furthermore, this Panel finds that the web site at the disputed domain name did not include any disclaimers or other indication that the Respondent intended to distinguish or separate its services from those of the Complainant (LEGO Juris A/S v. Simonovi Eood,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0863).
Finally, this Panel has considered the Complainant's arguments in relation to the lack of response by the Respondent to the cease and desist letter sent by the Complainant prior initiating the present UDRP proceedings. ...
2014-11-03 - Case Details
This Panel finds, similarly to other UDRP panels, that the Oki Data criteria are appropriate even when the respondent is not an authorised reseller, such as it is the case in this proceeding (LEGO Juris A/S v. Daniel Aziz,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1829; National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc. v. ...Furthermore, this Panel finds that the web site at the disputed domain name did not include any disclaimers or other indication that the Respondent intended to distinguish or separate its services from those of the Complainant (LEGO Juris A/S v. Simonovi Eood,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0863).
Finally, this Panel has considered the Complainant's arguments in relation to the lack of response by the Respondent to the cease and desist letter sent by the Complainant prior initiating the present UDRP proceedings. ...
2014-11-03 - Case Details
This Panel finds, similarly to other UDRP panels, that the Oki Data criteria are appropriate even when the respondent is not an authorised reseller, such as it is the case in this proceeding (LEGO Juris A/S v. Daniel Aziz,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1829; National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc. v. ...Furthermore, this Panel finds that the web site at the disputed domain name did not include any disclaimers or other indication that the Respondent intended to distinguish or separate its services from those of the Complainant (LEGO Juris A/S v. Simonovi Eood,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0863).
Finally, this Panel has considered the Complainant’s arguments in relation to the lack of response by the Respondent to the cease and desist letter sent by the Complainant prior initiating the present UDRP proceedings. ...
2014-11-03 - Case Details
It relies on Groupe Auchan v. Gan Yu,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0188, and LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...Thirdly, the Respondent has set up a page imitating the Complainant’s official website, has imitated the Complainant’s domain name in the composition of the disputed domain name and has finally contacted the Complainant’s employees through a phishing scheme.
Besides, the Complainant relies on LEGO Juris A/S v. store24hour,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0091; Lancôme Parfums et Beauté & Cie, L’Oréal v. 10 Selling,
WIPO Case No. ...
2015-08-31 - Case Details
As the Respondent was not party to any 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 those decisions is not evidence in this matter or binding on the Panel. (LEGO Juris A/S v. Administracion Dominios,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0265; LEGO Juris A/S v. Michael Fainshtein,
WIPO Case No. ...
2016-06-21 - Case Details
The addition of a country’s name to a trademark does not remove the confusing similarity between the mark and the resulting domain name. In LEGO Juris A/S v. LogoFusion,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0270, the Panel said:
“The Panel agrees with the Complainant that the addition of “Israel” to LEGO is not sufficient to render the domain name dissimilar or to prevent consumer confusion. ...
2008-02-12 - Case Details
In previous 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 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. ...Bad faith has already been found where a domain name is so obviously connected to 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. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494, and Sanofi-Aventis v. Nevis Domains LLC,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-09-07 - Case Details
参见WIPO Overview 2.0，第3.2段；Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows，同上和LEGO Juris A/S诉 Chen Yong，同上。WIPO Overview 2.0 进而要求专家组必须考察各种情况以认定被投诉人行为是否具有恶意，并列举了几种可被视为恶意的情况，包括“投诉人拥有驰名商标；被投诉人未作出答辩；隐瞒身份；及没有善意使用域名的可能性”。...见Jupiters Limited v. Aaron Hall, WIPO案件编号D2000-0574和LEGO Juris A/S 诉Chen Yong，同上。
鉴于上述事实及论据，专家组认定被投诉人在申请争议域名注册时已知道或应该知道FENDI是投诉人拥有的商标。上述行为构成政策下之恶意注册和使用。专家组认定投诉人完成了政策第4条(a)项所规定的第三个要素的举证责任。
...
2011-09-28 - Case Details
Technology Services Ltd.,
WIPO Zaaknr. DNL2008-0002; en LEGO Juris A/S v. M. Moench,
WIPO Zaaknr. DNL2009-0052). Indien Eiser hieraan voldoet, dan rust op Verweerder de bewijslast aan te tonen dat hij wel degelijk een recht op of legitiem belang bij de Domeinnaam heeft.
...
2017-11-28 - Case Details
The Domain Name wholly incorporates the above trademark registrations. As indicated in LEGO Juris A/S v.
Ma Ying Jo /Domain Admin, Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a , WIPO Case No.
...
2023-09-22 - Case Details
Oyen, Clothing Professionals WIPO Case No. DEUL2021-0005; LEGO Juris A/S v. Leonid Žitnikov,
WIPO Case No. DEUL2021-0002; Alko Inc. v. Titan Trading OÜ, Stepan Moissejev, WIPO Case
No. ...
2022-10-24 - Case Details
John Hopking / Neo net Ltd., supra, “generally, a user of a mark may not avoid likely confusion by appropriating another’s entire mark and adding descriptive or non-distinctive matter to it”, cited by the Complainant as well in the case LEGO Juris A/S v. PrivacyProtect.org / Kim Bum LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2012-2462 (“the addition of descriptive terms to a trademark is generally not a distinguishing feature[..]”), the addition of generic terms such as “buy”, “online” and the letter “q” do not distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark.
...
2013-06-12 - Case Details
Technology Services Ltd.,
WIPO Zaaknr. DNL2008-0002 en LEGO Juris A/S v. M. Moench,
WIPO Case No. DNL2009-0052). In dat geval rust op Verweerder de bewijslast aan te tonen dat hij een recht op of legitiem belang bij de Domeinnamen heeft.
...
2013-09-06 - Case Details
The addition of generic terms such as “buy” and “online” do not distinguish the domain name from the mark. See LEGO Juris A/S v. PrivacyProtect.org / Kim Bum LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2012-2462 (“the addition of descriptive terms to a trademark is generally not a distinguishing feature….”).
...
2013-05-16 - Case Details
The presence of generic or descriptive terms, such as “from usa,” does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark. See LEGO Juris A/S v. PrivacyProtect.org / Kim Bum LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2012-2462 (“the addition of descriptive terms to a trademark is generally not a distinguishing feature”).
...
2013-05-15 - Case Details
Many UDRP panels have sagely reached the same conclusion. See e.g., LEGO Juris A/S v. PrivacyProtect.org / Kim Bum LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2012-2462 (“the addition of descriptive terms to a trademark is generally not a distinguishing feature”).
...
2013-05-14 - Case Details
Further, the Respondent is no stranger to UDRP proceedings and was named as the Respondent in multiple cases including by not limited to LEGO Juris A/S v. Yang Kyung Won,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1124 () and Target Brands, Inc. v. ...
2015-04-27 - Case Details
In particular, there are UDRP decisions stating that the incorporation of the trademark and a generic word in a domain name is misleading and confusingly similar to the trademark owned by the complainant (LEGO Juris A/S v. Devin Steenberg,
WIPO Case No. D2015-0394; QVC Inc. and ER Marks Inc. v. WhoisGuard,
WIPO Case No. ...
2017-02-03 - Case Details