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. ...
2025-05-30 - Case Details
D2024-0730; Compagnie de
Saint-Gobain v. 石磊 (Shi Lei), WIPO Case No. D2024-0198; LEGO Juris A/S v. 石磊 (Lei Shi or Shi Lei),
WIPO Case No. D2024-0576; Haleon UK IP Limited v. shi lei, Shi Lei, WIPO Case No. ...
2025-01-14 - Case Details
The public will likely therefore confuse the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s
trademarks. See LEGO Juris A/S v. Intrexium Ltd, Lars Andersson, WIPO Case No. D2012-0450; see also
Société des Produits Nestlé SA v. ...
2024-11-08 - Case Details
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. To this the Complainant has cited LEGO Juris A/S v.
pcmaniabg, Paisiy Aleksandrov, WIPO Case No. D2010-1965; eBay Inc. v. David Sach, WIPO Case No.
...
2024-11-14 - 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. ...
2023-01-13 - Case Details
The
Respondent’s subsequent use of the disputed domain name to sell what appears to be counterfeit goods
branded using the Marks clearly amounts to bad-faith use, for the same reason (see, for example, LEGO
Juris A/S v. Whoisguard Protected, Whoisguard, Inc. / Giovanni Bonny, WIPO Case No. D2017-0143).
...
2023-01-02 - Case Details
The Respondent’s
subsequent use of the disputed domain name to sell what appears to be counterfeit goods branded using the
Marks clearly amounts to bad-faith use, for the same reason (see, for example, LEGO Juris A/S v. Whoisguard
Protected, Whoisguard, Inc. / Giovanni Bonny, WIPO Case No. D2017-0143).
...
2023-01-02 - Case Details
The disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website. As held in LEGO Juris A/S v. Djuradj Caranovic,
WIPO Case No. D2021-2641, the lack of so-called active use of the disputed domain name does not prevent
a finding of bad faith. ...
2023-04-04 - Case Details
The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website as of the date of this decision. However,
as held in LEGO Juris A/S v. Djuradj Caranovic, WIPO Case No. D2021-2641, the lack of so-called active
use of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith. ...
2023-04-17 - Case Details
Withheld for Privacy ehf / Carolina Rodrigues,
Fundacion Comercio Electronico, WIPO Case No. D2021-2366, LEGO Juris A/S v. Carolina Rodrigues,
Fundacion ComercioElectronico, WIPO Case No. D2021-1813, Costa Limited v. ...
2023-07-19 - Case Details
The Complainant has provided evidence that it owned trademark registrations of the EQUIFAX mark long
before the date that 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. ...
2023-03-20 - Case Details
The addition of the term “shopping” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity with the BIODERMA
Trademark (see LEGO Juris A/S v. Tech Domain Services Private Limited, WIPO Case No. D2009-1617
()).
...
2023-11-30 - 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).
According to section 2.13.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, panels have categorically held that the use of a
domain name for illegal activity (e.g., the sale of counterfeit goods or illegal pharmaceuticals, phishing,
distributing malware, unauthorized account access/hacking, impersonation/passing off, or other types of
fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. ...
2023-05-22 - Case Details
In particular, the Panel finds that the Respondent must have known about
the Complainant’s SKYSCANNER mark, as he acted opportunistically to adopt and use confusingly similar
domain names many years after the Complainant had established its brand rights and reputation around the
world, including Australia where the Respondent appears to reside. See LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494. The Panel also notes the Respondent’s failure to deny awareness of the
SKYSCANNER brand in his Response. ...
2023-05-26 - Case Details
The Respondent thus either knows or should have known of the
Complainant’s trademark or else possessed the kind of willful blindness that numerous panels have held
supports a finding of bad faith. (See LEGO Juris A/S v. Domains by Proxy, Inc., DomainsByProxy.com /
DBA David Inc., WIPO Case No. D2011-1839; Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP v. ...
2023-07-13 - Case Details
Thus, from the case record at hand, the Panel finds that the Respondent, when registering the Disputed
Domain Name, either knew or should have known of the Complainant’s trademarks. (See LEGO Juris A/S v.
Domains by Proxy, Inc., DomainsByProxy.com / DBA David Inc. WIPO Case No. D2011-1839; Georgia-
Pacific Consumer Products LP v. ...
2024-07-16 - Case Details
Past UDRP panels
have held that failure to respond to a cease-and-desist letter may be considered a further factor supporting a
finding bad faith registration and use of a domain name. See LEGO Juris A/S v. Eveline Christiany, WIPO
Case No. D2011-2294.
For these various reasons, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established this third element under the
Policy.
...
2024-07-16 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the registration of a well-known mark as a domain name is an act of bad faith
in itself and cites, LEGO Juris NS v Reiner Stotte, WIPO Case No. D2010-0494; and Sanofi-Aventis v. Nevis
Domains LLC, WIPO Case No. ...
2024-05-15 - Case Details
Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC /
Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, WIPO Case No. D2019-3045; LEGO Juris A/S v.
Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, WIPO
Case No. ...
2022-05-30 - Case Details
The Complainant has provided evidence that it owns trademark registrations of the CARREFOUR mark long
before the date that 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. ...
2022-05-20 - Case Details