The Complainant points to the fact that Liu
Fen, the underlying registrant for the disputed domain name, is listed as the Respondent in numerous similar
page 3
UDRP complaints which include TEVA and Lego. In each of these cases, the Complainant`s trademark was
registered in a domain name that was subsequently offered for sale. ...
2024-05-01 - 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. ...
2017-01-17 - 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, D2007-1872).
...
2017-06-21 - 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 (“gTLD”) suffix “.com” may generally be disregarded as a gTLD being simply a necessary component of 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. ...
2017-07-05 - Case Details
The letters are too minor to dispel confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the Complainant's trademark, while a gTLD suffix may generally be disregarded for the purposes of the comparison of a disputed domain name and a trademark. See Lego Juris A/S v. Chen Yong,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1611; Dr. Ing. H.c. F. Porsche AG v. zhanglei,
WIPO Case No. ...
2017-12-19 - 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 (“gTLD”) suffix “.com” may generally be disregarded as a gTLD being simply a necessary component of 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. ...
2017-07-18 - Case Details
D2016-0852 (transferring ); citing Lego Juris A/S v. shenglan li,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0373 (transferring <365lego.com> and finding that 365 is a “term commonly referring to 365 days in a year […].”)
...
2017-11-09 - Case Details
In particular, there are UDRP decisions stating that where a domain name incorporates the trademark and a generic word, the domain name is to be considered 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. ...
2017-11-03 - Case Details
Complainant states that a party using the same address as Respondent has previously offered domains for sale to trademark owners, demonstrating that Respondent is engaged in a pattern of behavior demonstrative of bad faith, and providing case references, e.g., to LEGO Juris A/S v. Transure Enterprise Ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1347.
Complainant believes Respondent has adopted and is using the Domain Name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users seeking Complainant's services for commercial gain. ...
2018-09-18 - Case Details
The Complainant contends, and cites previous decisions in support of the contention, that in the absence of any license or permission from the Complainant to use a famous or widely-known trade mark, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain name could reasonably be claimed, citing:
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. ...
2018-10-24 - Case Details
The Panel will have to establish whether the Complainant’s case meets the requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. See LEGO Juris A/S v. NyunHwa Jung,
WIPO Case No. D2012‑1233; Charabot SA v. Name Redacted,
WIPO Case No. D2018-0339.
...
2018-11-05 - 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.
...
2018-06-22 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have regularly ruled that bad faith was found where a domain name is so obviously connected with a well-known trademark that its use by someone, with no connection to the trademark, suggests opportunistic bad faith. See LEGO Juris A/S v. store24hour,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0091 and Carrefour v. Jean-Claude Bot / Albert Pierre,
WIPO Case No. ...
2019-03-08 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have regularly ruled that bad faith was 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. See LEGO Juris A/S v. store24hour,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0091 and Carrefour v. Jean-Claude Bot / Albert Pierre,
WIPO Case No. ...
2018-11-26 - 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).
...
2011-04-18 - Case Details
These links should therefore be considered as sponsored links. This sort of arrangement was discussed in LEGO Juris A/S v. Suka LLC,
WIPO Case No. 2011-1057, regarding the domain names and where the panel stated: “The Panel finds that no bona fide offering of goods and services can be found, when a site is using, without a license or authorization, a registered trademark as part of its name to indirectly solicit orders for products sold by others, even if the products finally sold are made by the Complainant.” ...
2012-01-24 - Case Details
It now appears that there is no server to it so, effectively, it is not being used. However, in Lego Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494, also involving a famous trademark, the panelist referred to the consensus view of the WIPO panel decisions, that “[t]he lack of active use of the domain name does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith”, and that a panel must examine such circumstances as “complainant having a well-known trademark, no response to the complaint, concealment of identity and the impossibility of conceiving a good faith use of the domain name”. ...
2011-04-08 - Case Details
Il ajoute, comme le Requérant le signalait dans sa demande, que le Défendeur est coutumier de la situation et a déjà fait l’objet d’une décision administrative imposant le transfert au demandeur d’un nom de domaine indument enregistré (Lego Juris A/S v. Adrjan Wajdarz,
Litige OMPI No. DFR2010-0016).
7. Décision
Conformément aux articles 20(b) et (c) du Règlement, l’Expert ordonne la transmission au profit du Requérant des noms de domaine et .
...
2011-01-14 - Case Details
The Complaint and all of the accompanying Annexes have been submitted to the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center in English; and
vii) it would be cumbersome and to the Complainant's disadvantage if Complainant was required to translate the Complaint into Chinese. See LEGO Juris A/S v. M. Moench,
WIPO Case No. DNL2009-0052.
Given that i) Respondent’s website is all in English, which shows the intention of marketing to international customers; ii) the pre-dispute correspondence between the Complainant and the Respondent was in English; iii) the Respondent had not taken part in the proceedings, the Panel decides English shall be the language of the present administrative proceedings.
6.2 Substantive elements of the Policy
A. ...
2010-12-08 - 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.
...
2010-08-02 - Case Details