Such activities do not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services capable of conferring a right or legitimate interest (see similarly mVisible Technologies, Inc. supra; Robert Bosch GmbH v Asia Ventures, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0946; and LEGO Juris A/S v. J.h.Ryu,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1156).
The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...
2015-07-27 - 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
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
There is also a history of prior bad faith findings in the cases involving the Respondent such as LEGO Juris A/S v. Noorinet,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1705; Kshocolat Ltd v. Nurinet,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0577; Key Relocation Center AB v. ...
2015-01-26 - 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
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
En enregistrant le nom de domaine litigieux , le défendeur, résidant en France, ne pouvait pas sérieusement ignorer l’existence de la marque, en sorte la Commission estime que l’enregistrement a été fait de mauvaise foi (Voir,LEGO Juris A/S c. Reiner Stotte,
Litige OMPI No. D2010-0494 et ALSTOM c. Domain Investments LLC,
Litige OMPI No. ...
2016-02-29 - Case Details
For the purpose of assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, the suffix ".com" may generally be disregarded as a generic Top-Level Domain being a necessary component in a domain name (LEGO Juris A/S v. Whois Data Protection Sp. z o.o. / Mirek Nowakowski ROSTALCO Sp. z o.o.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2016-02-24 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have ruled that gTLD suffix generally has no capacity to distinguish a domain name from a trademark (see Dassault (Groupe Industriel Marcel Dassault) v. Ma Xiaojuan,
WIPO Case No. D2015-1733; Lego Juris A/S v. Chen Yong,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1611; Dr. Ing. H.c. F. Porsche AG v. zhanglei,
WIPO Case No. ...
2016-04-28 - Case Details
In the Panel’s view, such conduct cannot be regarded as giving rise to rights or legitimate interests on the part of the Respondent to register and use the disputed domain name (see, e.g., LEGO Juris A/S v. Andrei Novakovich,
WIPO Case No. D2016-1513).
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name resolving to an inactive website (see, e.g., Philip Morris USA Inc. v. ...
2020-07-30 - Case Details
Natomiast przyrostek ‘.com’ nie wpływa na ocenę identyczności lub podobieństwa znaku i nazwy domeny w ramach niniejszej przesłanki (zobacz LEGO Juris A/S v. Whois Data Protection Sp. z o.o. / Mirek Nowakowski ROSTALCO Sp. z o.o., sprawa WIPO nr D2012-0607). .
...
2020-06-04 - Case Details
The absence of such authorization has been viewed as an impediment to a legitimate use claim (see LEGO Juris A/S v. Domain Park Ltd., David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2020-05-18 - Case Details
The Complainant has provided evidence that it owns trademark registrations long before the disputed domain name was registered and that it is not affiliated with nor has it licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademark (see LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-03-30 - Case Details
Such circumstances include, inter alia:
(i) evidence showing that the respondent can understand the language of the complaint;
(ii) the language/script of the domain name particularly where the same as that of the complainant’s mark;
(iii) any content on the webpage under the disputed domain name;
(iv) potential unfairness or unwarranted delay in ordering the complainant to translate the complaint;
(v) other indicia tending to show that it would not be unfair to proceed in a language other than that of the registration agreement (e.g., LEGO Juris A/S v. Leonid Žitnikov,
WIPO Case No. DEUL2021-0002; Skyscanner Limited v. Bolognesi Damiano, Aim S.r.l,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-10-28 - Case Details
Above.com Domain Privacy / Transure Enterprise Ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2018-1698; LEGO Juris A/S v. Transure Enterprise Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1347.
7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.
...
2021-12-02 - Case Details
Withheld for Privacy ehf / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico,
WIPO Case No. D2021-2366, and LEGO Juris A/S v. Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico,
WIPO Case No. D2021-1813, among others), which further reinforces the overall impression of bad faith in this case: see e.g. section 3.1.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).
...
2021-11-29 - Case Details
The Complainants have provided evidence that they own trademark registrations long before the disputed domain names were registered and that they are not affiliated with nor have they licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Complainants’ trademark (see LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-05-25 - Case Details
Withheld for
Privacy ehf / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, WIPO Case No. D2021-2366,
and LEGO Juris A/S v. Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, WIPO Case
No. D2021-1813, among others.
...
2022-03-04 - Case Details
This evidences bad faith pursuant to
paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy. See LEGO Juris A/S v. Thomas Ronk, Tendy LLC, WIPO Case No.
D2022-1284 (multiple domain names in proceeding were used and registered in bad faith by Respondent
Thomas Ronk, Tendy LLC).
...
2022-11-14 - Case Details
The Complainant has provided evidence that it owns trademark registrations long before the disputed
domain name was registered and that it is not affiliated with nor has it licensed or otherwise permitted the
Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademark (see LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith,
Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master, WIPO Case No. ...
2022-10-26 - Case Details