The disputed domain name consists of “accutane” which is the Complainant’s registered trademark in its entirety and “365”. The Panel concurs with the panel in LEGO Juris A/S v. shenglan li,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0373, in which the figure “365” was found to be a generic term commonly referring to 365 days in a year. ...
2016-07-22 - Case Details
UDRP panels found in previous decisions that in the absence of any license or permission from the Complainant to use such widely-known trademarks, no bona fide or legitimate use of a disputed domain name may reasonably be claimed (Lego Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2016-11-16 - Case Details
Thilak Raj, Net Jobs,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0033; and LEGO Juris A/S v. Private, Registration/Dohe Dot,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0753.
Accordingly the Panel finds that the Complainant has established element 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2016-12-15 - Case Details
UDRP panels found in previous decisions that in the absence of any license or permission from the
complainant to use widely known trademarks, no bona fide or legitimate use of a disputed domain name may
reasonably be claimed (LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy,
Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master, WIPO Case No. ...
2022-09-26 - Case Details
In the circumstances of this case, the passive holding of the disputed domain name
constitutes bad faith registration and use.
In similar circumstances, the Panel in LEGO Juris A/S v. M. Moench, WIPO Case No. D2011-0913, found
that the addition of the term “new” to a well-known trademark did not avoid a finding of confusing similarity
and in fact reinforced the false impression of affiliation or renewal, supporting a finding of bad faith
registration and use.
...
2025-10-17 - Case Details
Technology Services Ltd., WIPO Zaaknr. DNL2008-0002; en LEGO Juris A/S v. M. Moench, WIPO Zaaknr.
DNL2009-0052). Indien Eiseres hieraan voldoet, dan is het aan de Verweerster om aan te tonen dat zij wel
een recht heeft op of legitiem belang bij de Domeinnaam.
...
2024-12-18 - Case Details
Technology Services Ltd.,
WIPO Zaaknr. DNL2008-0002; en LEGO Juris A/S v. M. Moench,
WIPO Zaaknr. DNL2009-0052). Indien Eiseres 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.
...
2017-07-13 - Case Details
Where the Complainant's mark is so widely known that a respondent cannot credibly claim to have been unaware of the mark, previous UDRP panels have been prepared to hold that the domain name was registered in bad faith. See LEGO Juris A/S v. Domains by Proxy, Inc., DomainsByProxy.com / DBA David Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1839.
...
2018-07-23 - Case Details
For the purpose of assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, the generic Top-Level Domain suffix “.com” may be disregarded (LEGO Juris A/S v. Whois Data Protection Sp. z o.o. / Mirek Nowakowski ROSTALCO Sp. z o.o.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2020-02-07 - Case Details
A finding of bad faith registration and usage is amply supported by the uncontroverted evidence. See LEGO Juis A/S v. Domains by Proxy, Inc., DomainsByProxiy.com / DBA David Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1839 (“the circumstances of this case lead the Panel to consider that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s Trademark and of its corresponding toys and games and thus registered the Disputed Domain Names and uses them in bad faith in order to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s Trademark for the Respondent’s commercial gain”).
...
2019-07-25 - Case Details
Each domain namecontains the name of a major company, such as “Airbus”, “Lego” or “Disney”, with the addition of a general or descriptive word, such as “grp”, “hq”, or a geographic descriptor, such as “mx”.
...
2019-12-20 - Case Details
L’Expert fait référence notamment à la décision suivante : Lego Juris A/S contre Mickael Demimuid,
Litige OMPI No. DFR2009-0038.
Au vu de ce qui précède, l’Expert considère que le Requérant est titulaire de droits sur la dénomination SFR à titre de marque, nom de domaine et dénomination sociale. ...
2011-04-06 - Case Details
Above.com Domain Privacy / Shu Lin, Shu Lin Enterprises Limited / Host Master, Transure Enterprise Ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1986; LEGO Juris A/S v. Shu Lin/Transure Enterprise Ltd/ Above.com Domain Privacy,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1648 (finding that Transure Enterprise Ltd’s involvement in numerous prior UDRP proceedings supported a clear finding of registration and use in bad faith).
...
2011-04-06 - Case Details
Technology Services Ltd.,
WIPO Zaaknr. DNL2008-0002 en LEGO Juris A/S v. M. Moench,
WIPO Zaaknr. DNL2009-0052). Indien de Eiser hieraan voldoet, dan rust op de Verweerder de bewijslast aan te tonen dat hij een recht op of legitiem belang bij de Domeinnaam heeft.
...
2012-05-31 - Case Details
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. See LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0138). While the Panel notes that the terms “stone,” “island,” and “home” have dictionary meanings, the website at the Disputed Domain Name does not provide information related to any such dictionary meaning, but rather resolves to an online store selling what appear to be counterfeit products (as described below).
6.10. ...
2014-12-18 - Case Details
D2011-1826 ; SAP AG v. Peifang Huang,
WIPO Case No. D2014-0928; LEGO Juris A/S v. Samuel Olsson,
WIPO Case No. D2012-2390.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has proven the first element of the Policy.
...
2015-03-11 - Case Details
It submits that the addition of other terms to the disputed domain name should not affect a finding that the dispute domain name in question is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered trademark and cited the decision in LEGO Juris A/S v. Richard Larkins Sets&Reps,
WIPO Case No. D2012-1024, in support of that contention.
...
2013-05-08 - Case Details
Quite to the contrary, the addition of this term rather increases the risk of confusion with the ROGER DUBUIS Mark of the Complainant since it is the main product protected by said trademarks. (LEGO Juris A/S v. Susan Waldes,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1845 ().
As a result, based on the rights of the Complainant in the ROGER DUBUIS Mark and on the confusing similarity between these trademarks and the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is met.
...
2013-12-13 - Case Details
See, kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba dba Toshiba Corporation v WUFACAI,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0768; LEGO Juris A/S v Budi Irshandi/Cha Licious,
WIPO Case No. D2012-2343 (for “uk”); Fashions Limited v Australia Karen Millen, Linde Meredith,
WIPO Case No. ...
2013-10-25 - Case Details
It has been held in previous UDRP cases that knowledge of a corresponding mark at the time of the domain name’s registration suggests bad faith (LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494; Caixa D’Estalvis i Pensions de Barcelona (“La Caixa”) v. ...
2015-09-15 - Case Details