The Complainant 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. ...
2021-08-03 - 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. ...
2021-03-29 - 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 the Respondent 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. ...
2021-03-02 - 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. ...
2021-02-23 - Case Details
Hulmiho Ukolen, Poste restante / Domain Admin, Whois protection, this company does not own this domain name s.r.o.,
WIPO Case No. D2016-0933;
LEGO Juris A/S v. Hulmiho Ukolen, Poste restante / Domain Admin, Whois protection, this company does not own this domain name s.r.o.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-03-11 - 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
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. ...
2016-04-14 - Case Details
A TLD suffix generally has no capacity to distinguish a domain name from a trademark for the purposes of a comparison under the Policy. 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. ...
2016-12-14 - Case Details
Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. sysadmin admin, balata.com ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0954; LEGO Juris A/S v. huangderong,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1325).
The Panel finds that the Complainant has therefore met the burden of proving that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark, pursuant to the Policy, Paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2010-06-18 - Case Details
Technology Services Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. DNL2008-0002 and LEGO Juris A/S v. M. Moench,
WIPO Case No. DNL2009-0052).
The Complainant has contended that it has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use its MOZY trademark and the Respondent did not dispute the Complainant's claim to that effect, nor could the Panelist establish any indication that the Respondent, (article 3.1 sub a) before having any notice of the dispute, made demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name (or a name corresponding to the Domain Name) in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, (article 3.1 sub b) is commonly known by the Domain Name, or (article 3.1 sub c) is making a legitimate noncommercial use of the Domain Name.
...
2010-01-08 - Case Details