The Panel, which notices that to accept the Complainant's argument implies to prove a state of mind by evidence of future conduct, is nonetheless aware that 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. ...
2012-08-20 - Case Details
Fundacion Private Whois,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0842; LEGO Juris A/S v. Howtogetrealmoneyonline.com,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0832; Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Fundacion Private Whois, Domain Administrator,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-08-13 - Case Details
Technology Services Ltd,
WIPO Case No. DNL2008-0002 and LEGO Juris A/S v. M. Moench,
WIPO Case No. DNL2009-0052).
The Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. ...
2012-06-12 - Case Details
The addition of such generic or descriptive term does not eliminate the confusing similarity with the Trademark (see: LEGO Juris A/S v. Nick Terlouw,
WIPO Case No. DNL2011-0023; Taylor Made Golf Company, Inc. v. Lotom Group S.A.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-04-03 - Case Details
“beaute”是法文，中文含有“美丽、美人、美”的意思，与CHRISTIAN LOUBOUTIN商标字样连用，其主要识别部分仍以“christianlouboutin”为主，而无法将争议域名与投诉人商标给人的整体印象有效区别(WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition，“WIPO Overview 2.0”，第1.9段)。而“.com”是一通用顶级域名，本身也未具备任何区别争议域名与投诉人商标的效果(LEGO Juris A/S 诉 Chen Yong，WIPO案件编号D2009-1611)。
综上，专家组认定投诉书符合政策第4条(a)项所规定的第一个要素。
B. 权利或合法利益
根据政策第4条(a)项第(ii)目规定：“a．可适用的争议。...更未见被投诉人提出证据显示，其对“Christian Louboutin”享有商标权或相对应的注册公司、事业组织的名称，或者虽然其对“Christian Louboutin”不享有商标权，但被投诉人已因该争议域名而广为公众所知。(LEGO Juris A/S 诉 Yong Zhi, WIPO案件编号D2011-1406)。
综上，投诉人已提出初步证据证明被投诉人对争议域名不享有任何权利或合法利益，被投诉人亦未提出相对应的证据或答辩。...
2013-06-18 - Case Details
而且，争议域名中用“-”符号将“sanofi” 跟“sun”分隔开来，更使得SANOFI商标成为争议域名最主要的识别部分。“.com”则是一通用顶级域名，本身也未具备任何区别争议域名与投诉人商标的效果(LEGO Juris A/S 诉 Chen Yong，WIPO案件编号D2009-1611)。
综上，专家组认定投诉书符合政策第4条(a)项所规定的第一个要素。
B. 权利或合法利益
根据政策第4条(a)项第(ii)目规定：“a．可适用的争议。...更未见被投诉人提出证据显示，其对“sanofi”的字样享有商标权或相对应的注册公司、事业组织的名称，或者虽然其对“sanofi”不享有商标权，但被投诉人已因该争议域名而广为公众所知。(LEGO Juris A/S 诉 Yong Zhi, WIPO案件编号D2011-1406)。
综上，投诉人已提出初步证据证明被投诉人对争议域名不享有任何权利或合法利益，被投诉人亦未提出相对应的主张和证据。...
2013-07-25 - Case Details
参见Aventis Pharma SA., Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH v. Jonathan Valicenti, WIPO案件编号D2005-0037 和LEGO Juris A/S 诉 Chen Yong, WIPO案件编号D2009-1611。
争议域名的使用很可能会令互联网用户误认为争议域名指向投诉人的网站。互联网用户将会非常容易误以为被投诉人与投诉人具有一定的关联。
...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OSRAM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。
...
2011-04-29 - Case Details
D2003-0859 (“It is well-settled that the use of another’s trademark to sell competitive goods and services is an act of trademark infringement, and cannot [. . . ] be considered to be a bona fide offering of goods and services”); LEGO Juris A/S v. PrivacyProtect.org / SMVS Consultancy Private Limited,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1094.
The Respondent’s Domain Name incorporates both Marks and resolves to the its Website featuring Sponsored Links advertising competing or strongly related products to those published and marketed by Autodesk, Inc. ...The “use of [a] Domain Name [. . .] simply to provide links to web sites (a practice typically engaged in to collect referral fees) cannot be considered [. . .] a noncommercial use.” See Lego Juris A/S, supra. The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name at all times has been commercial given the Sponsored Links that comprise the Respondent’s Website and the commercial purpose of the Third Party Websites to which the Sponsored Links resolve.
...
2012-02-06 - 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 domain name could reasonably be claimed. See, LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...Previous UDRP panels have found that in the absence of any license or permission from complainant to use widely-known trademarks, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the domain name could reasonably be claimed. See, LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2011-04-07 - Case Details
As the Complainant rightly points out, 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 actual or contemplated 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. ...
2013-10-28 - Case Details
As the Complainant rightly points out, 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 actual or contemplated 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. ...
2013-11-15 - Case Details
As the Complainant rightly points out, 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 actual or contemplated 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. ...
2013-11-15 - Case Details
As the Complainant rightly points out, 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 actual or contemplated 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. ...
2013-11-12 - Case Details
As decided in other UDRP cases, “the test of identity or confusing similarity under the Policy is confined to a comparison of the disputed domain name and the trademark alone”. LEGO Juris A/S v. Name Administrator, Hong Kong Domains, LLC., supra. See also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2014-06-18 - Case Details
As decided in previous UDRP cases, “the test of identity or confusing similarity under the Policy is confined to a comparison of the disputed domain name and the trademark alone”. LEGO Juris A/S v. Name Administrator, Hong Kong Domains, LLC., supra. See also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2014-06-12 - Case Details
CPIC NET and Syed Hussain,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0195; LEGO Juris A/S v. Suka LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1057; and Guccio Gucci S.p.A. v. Brenda Hawkins,
WIPO Case No. ...
2015-02-03 - Case Details
A gTLD suffix generally has no capacity to distinguish a domain name from 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. ...
2016-09-22 - 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; Fashions Limited v Australia Karen Millen, Linde Meredith,
WIPO Case No. ...
2016-09-19 - Case Details
A gTLD suffix generally has no capacity to distinguish a domain name from 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. ...
2016-02-12 - Case Details
D2015-2175; see also 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. ...
2016-11-30 - Case Details